News & Analysis
Peak Oil Bites the Dust?
What peak oil? Why an oil glut is ahead ... In May, less than a month after the blowout of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, a key milestone was achieved with little notice: Total U.S. supplies of petroleum and products refined from it (including the Strategic Petroleum Reserve) surpassed 1.8 billion barrels, reaching the highest level in the last 20 years. Since then the total has continued to edge upward, hitting 1.87 billion barrels in the week ended August 27, according to the Energy Information Administration. Despite the Iraq War and the resulting production disruptions, despite the moratorium on drilling in the Gulf, despite turmoil in Nigeria and ongoing cross-border transshipment quarrels in Central Asia and the multiple, repeated declarations that "peak oil" has arrived and supplies will inevitably dwindle, the United States has more petroleum on hand today than it has had since at least the beginning of the first Gulf War. – CNN
Dominant Social Theme: Please do not peer to closely at the man behind the curtain.
Free-Market Analysis: Here at The Daily Bell we continue to cheerfully cover the degeneration of the elite's dominant social themes. (See other story in today's Bell.) The 21st century's truth telling via the Internet and the endless ravel of the financial crisis has proven increasingly lethal to the attempts of various fear-based promotions in our view. As we continually monitor the waxing and waning of these promotional schemes (that is all we try to do, in fact), we are astonished by their growing lack of effectiveness.
Many are well aware of the foundering of the global warming meme, but the rationale for the Afghan war is in deep trouble along with the promotional arguments (narratives) that accompany it. Similarly, central banking is not held in high esteem, though it is one of the most important of the elite's promotions; and in our view the Federal Reserve's credibility especially has been badly tarnished. It is increasingly difficult in fact for the elite to argue that the command-and-control "capitalism" of modern regulatory democracy is in any way effective or even necessary.
One would think that questions about 9/11 would have subsided by now but in fact the questions only continue to grow on the Internet and show no signs of subsiding. The Tea Party movement in America has undermined the legitimacy of the two-party duopoly and people are actively seeking out (shudder) libertarian solutions.
The Keynesian meme that was supposed to provide intellectual cover for financial authoritarianism increasingly gives way to Misesian, individual Human Action. The European Union seems to be degenerating and now there is this – intimations of mortality for an especially pernicious promotion: Peak Oil. Here is the conclusion of the article excerpted above:
More than anything, though, the looming oil surplus calls into question the concept of peak oil, at least in the near future, along with the whole science of forecasting future oil supplies. Adam Brandt, a professor at Stanford's Department of Energy Resources Engineering, released a study last month examining the various models that have been used to predict the future of world oil supplies. "Data do not support assertions that any one model type is most useful for forecasting future oil production," Brandt concludes. "In fact, evidence suggests that existing models have fared poorly in predicting global oil production." (- CNN)
In fact, as we have long pointed out the entire premise of Peak Oil was flawed. It was rooted in the Malthusian pre-neo-classical perspective that trends (once observed) were not to be affected by the perceptions of those who composed them. In other words, according to Thomas Malthus, if one observed that population would eventually exceed the food supply, people themselves were assumed, like potted plants, to acquiesce to the trend without taking further action. They were supposed to starve, passively, along with their families.
Eventually, the classical perception of economics was superseded by neo-classical economics with the Austrian school's magnificent perception of marginal utility – the idea that prices were variable especially at the margin and only the market itself could determine these values. Marginal utility along with Adam Smith's concept of the Invisible Hand underpin (excuse the pun) the modern economic revolution started by the Austrians and sublimely expressed in Ludwig von Mises' opus Human Action.
Mises postulated that the progress of nations was actually the progress of individuals. There is nothing accomplished by the ritualistic recitations of group think. There is only the spontaneous Hayakian cooperation of individuals pursuing their own enlightened self-interest. Given these sentiments expressed so eloquently in the past 50 years, there are hardly any words in our admittedly sparse vocabularies to describe the condescension and ignorance of the Peak Oil meme.
The Malthusian idea that people will sit patiently "freezing in the dark" as Big Oil struggles unsuccessfully to cope with falling oil supplies was an obscene variant of past condescending interpretations of economics. It never made sense to us and we have stated it emphatically as opportunities have presented themselves. We have long pointed out that oil may indeed be abiotic, the result of natural processes deep below the earth's crust.
And we have also pointed out how Big Oil has funded Green environmental movements to ensure that much of the Western land-mass is now off-limits for drilling. The result is that drilling is done in third-world countries where the supply chain is extended and available for endless cost-elaborations and delivery-risk. It is also no coincidence in our view that off-shore drilling has become a popular alternative oil-drilling methodology.
It is not expensive to drill on land but to drill at sea and at depth is monumentally costly and dangerous. This sort of barrier-to-entry favors Big Oil considerably. Finally, all who wish to can go onto YouTube and see for themselves the various energy alternatives developed by clever entrepreneurs. Curiously these never seem to be reported on by the mainstream media, which is continually concerned with the false, fear-based promotion of "conservation" and reduced energy consumption.
Thus it is, we are delighted that the Peak Oil meme is now being questioned by such state media excrescences as CNN. We note once more as we have before that there is a growing trend in mainstream media to reset the boundaries of permissible conversation about the elite's various promotions. This is in line with our predictions that the elite itself will have to take "a step back" as the truth-telling of the Internet continually undermines long-running but increasingly unpersuasive themes.
There are many more non-elite than elite. If the many billions cannot be convincingly instructed that the current shape of society is predestined and necessary, then all the legislation in the world will not avail those who seek to dominate society through lies and wars. Once credibility has been mislaid, the law itself may be seen as increasingly illegitimate. And once this happens, the elite is exposed to a good deal of "blowback."
Conclusion: Promotions are most important to the elite, and the inability of the elite to convincingly implement them in the 21st century, if that is what is happening (and we argue this is so) has numerous ramifications from both an investment and real-world industrial standpoint. Most importantly, the larger generational, familial campaign of the elite to impose some sort of world governance is increasingly at risk. We have long predicted this and see no reason to revise our analysis. The crumbling of the monstrous, mainstream-media lie that is Peak Oil would be most gratifying.
Latest Daily Bell Articles
Feedback


Posted by Marv on 02/09/11 02:08 PM
Posted by Jonathan on 11/13/10 05:07 PM
Oil companies are now going to water depths over 10000 feet, they are searching for oil in shale, and tar sands in Canada. They would only be doing these things if oil were not available in easier places. We have gone through the bulk of easy oil on land and shallow water. If we were able to go through our easy sources on land and shallow water, do you not think we can go through the difficult to reach sources? Couple that with increased demand from developing countries and the fact that we have no major new sources coming online. I see a very high likelihood that we are going to experience some severe oil shortfalls soon (even with a current surplus).
Posted by Rolf H. Rothermel on 09/16/10 02:06 PM
Posted by Weeble on 09/15/10 05:14 PM
Click to view link
![]() |
Posted by Zenbillionaire on 09/15/10 12:48 PM
"we should unpack our sentence."
Thank you for humoring me, however it was unnecessary since I was making a stilted sort of joke there. All the fancy verbiage was meant to boil down to a variation on the old "be careful what you wish for ..." caution.
@weeble
I will do what I can to unearth some of the web references I've come across over the years to find something for you. Essentially, spent fuels can (and are) recycled and 'burned' in the newer reactors. Fast breeder reactors actually make fuel as a byproduct of power generation. Nuclear fuel cycles are complex beasts and I can't describe all of different designs and outcomes in a short reply. I can suggest (as I may have already) starting in the present day rather than with the Manhattan Project of yore; look up 'Gen IV' and 'Liquid Metal Cooled' reactor designs, along with the various Gen IV fuel cycles for a more complete understanding of 'nuclear waste'. In short, there's a very good reason that the so called 'waste' resulting from the use of water cooled uranium reactors is being sequestered, namely that it isn't waste at all.
Posted by Weeble on 09/14/10 05:28 PM
Do you have any good links for better info on nuclear power? I tried to find some but no Candu.
![]() |
Posted by Zenbillionaire on 09/14/10 04:04 AM
On the upside, the franc is rapidly approaching parity with the dollar. Who would have guessed save thee and me?
![]() |
Posted by Zenbillionaire on 09/14/10 01:19 AM
"Peak Oil is a symptom of this lack of a free energy market, but the idea that Peak Oil is the ONLY manipulation taking place does not ring true to us. We would tend to believe that there are other manipulations involved, and it would not surprise us in the least if some of these included the repression of cheaper or more efficient energy technologies."
There is no doubt in my mind that nuclear energy has been actively and very effectively repressed during my lifetime. It's alarmingly coincidental that it has been repressed by the same group who engage in carbon taxing and the AGW meme, which leads to a concern that the motive force in both promotions is the same; namely the producers of oil based energy.
Repressing nuclear power for environmental reasons drives up the price of oil. Taxing carbon fuels for environmental reasons drives up the price of oil. Who is the ultimate winner in these promotions? Big Oil and Big Government. It's pretty easy to locate motive, method and opportunity.
The fear based promotions surrounding nuclear power are stunning in their absurdity. The idea that we must somehow sequester radioactive power metals after they've been 'used' in a nuclear plant is patently false, yet no casual reader knows this. We have been conditioned by the media to believe nuclear power is dangerous and nuclear 'waste' actually exists; nothing could be further from the truth.
The really scary part of this is that it seems Big Oil and Big Government are so enamored of this promotion they are happy to start wars with countries like Iran to keep it going.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Interesting points about nuclear energy. Thanks.
![]() |
Posted by Zenbillionaire on 09/14/10 12:43 AM
"as we have long pointed out the entire premise of Peak Oil was flawed. It was rooted in the Malthusian pre-neo-classical perspective that trends (once observed) were not to be affected by the perceptions of those who composed them."
And a certain Dr. Heisenberg might perhaps agree with the finding that the observer and the observed are more intimately linked than the casual bystander might think, which leads to a conclusion concerning the underlying nature of reality; it is plastic. If this conclusion is correct, it follows that reality itself is consensual.
So this might imply that the company one keeps is far more important than we might otherwise believe.
Reply from The Daily Bell
No, you make a clever point, but we should unpack our sentence.
What we were trying to say was that Malthus and others believed that their analysis of trends (and their inevitable destination) was to remain unaffected by the ACTIONS of those human beings who participated in (composed) those trends.
Posted by Dan Brown on 09/13/10 11:10 AM
We will run out of oil as there is a finite amount of oil in a finite world that, clearly, is not composed primarily of oil. Technology, execution, and how much we're willing to pay for oil will determine how much comes out of the ground.
Ultimately, costs will increase, simply because companies must cover the additional infrastructure investment, energy inputs of refining lower-grade crudes, and costs of technological developments. Peak Oil will ultimately be an economic issue, as we will not likely run out of oil simply because oil will become prohibitively expensive, and the alternatives much less so.
This, of course, ignores the economic implications of a world where our principle energy resources skyrockets in price, but we will likely find alternatives, albeit not likely as energy rich as petroleum was.
I suggest all interested in studying this issue in depth to read Click to view link. It's a user-contributed site that explores many issues regarding energy and mineral scarcity, as well as the ecological implications thereof.
The first rule of skepticism is a willingness to abandon your paradigm. We are very likely consuming the resources of this planet faster than it can replenish. It's still a Darwinian world: our survival as a free people is contingent on how we adapt to this.
Posted by Weeble on 09/13/10 09:54 AM
Click to view link
The "African Flavoured" song is Sweet Lullaby by Deep Forest. Enjoy!
Posted by Weeble on 09/13/10 09:27 AM
Our NG heating bill is $200 per month compared to $75 per month 15 years ago, which is quite high . . . but a side issue here.
Maybe I should start closing the windows in the winter?
Inflation is about 55% as an add-on over 10 years ago by my calcs.
Posted by Weeble on 09/13/10 08:50 AM
The Polywell device seems far too complicated to easily discovered by the Ancients who obviously found excellent power sources to achieve the wonders, many of which still stand today.
@ Slosch
High pressure NG, although a nice energy source, likes to burn at low pressure (4PSI?), and needs thick thank walls to store (2000 PSI?) for use in vehicles. Therefore the vehicle range is low, because the tanks are heavy.
Static equipment, such as home furnaces and home generators work much better due to a pipeline supply, but the cost is much higher than if converted to electricity before use (I calculated 10x the cost for a 1000W Honda gasoline generator to produce electricity, compared to the cost of grid power.)
May I ask, do you think the BTU volume equivalent @ 4 PSI @ 21 degrees Celsuis of NG over gasoline or diesel is prohibitive for vehicle use and should NG be restricted to static internal combustion engine power generation (decentralized or centralized). . . . and is the forseeable cost comparable to nuclear power generation?
Canada has quite a few NG generators, but it seems like a costly way to get around nuclear power for the tree hugger (or Waterrmelon) crowd. "They" tore down a coal generator a few years back and have cornered us into NG. Hence, my $200 monthly NG bill, compared to $70 15 years ago.
Posted by Slosch on 09/13/10 05:01 AM
A BOE or Barrel of Gas Equivalent is a measure of any fuel by BTU equivalent of a barrel of oil. In exxon's case they increased their production by their purchase of XTO the countries largest CNG exploration company and have made up for their production to sale ratio by counting Natural gas units.
I have noticed that the media is still just calling it "barrels" without noting the difference. This is hugely misleading to the public and the energy markets on wall street.
more info I wrote on my blog Click to view link
Let us know what you find out there on this topic.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Thanks. The industry has been flaring natural gas for a century. Now they want to "count it." Progress!
Posted by Mariposa De Oro on 09/12/10 03:18 PM
Posted by MGN on 09/12/10 12:56 PM
Posted by Jeffy on 09/12/10 11:28 AM
All things considered, and while certainly not an optimal solution, libertarian and market-based ideas would provide a small level of improvement over what is being forced upon us by the criminal thugs currently residing in the District of Columbia. No?
Posted by John Danforth on 09/12/10 10:47 AM
Posted by John Danforth on 09/12/10 10:43 AM
@ DB,
I didn't misunderstand your point, I was trying to expand on it.
"We do not agree that energy research leads inevitably back to oil and the internal combustion engine."
I didn't mean to imply this; I meant it's the most efficient we have now, and we will have to keep going back to it until a more efficient alternative is found (or pay the price with a decreased standard of living). Part of the manipulations by the PE in the energy market consist of artificially raising the cost of oil-based energy ($4.00/gallon gasoline), while subsidizing energy-wasting substitutes like ethanol. In trying to expand on the points you made, I simply wanted to explain that it isn't that hard to figure out whether an alternative is worthwhile or not, and the market does this most efficiently (through price).
"We do not necessarily agree that the many alternative PRIVATE efforts that show up on YouTube are inevitably false or scientifically illiterate."
I didn't mean to imply this either. It's just that all the ones I've investigated so far (and it's a hobby of mine)have failed on one or both of the two criteria I mentioned above in my challenge. That doesn't mean one won't be found, and if it is, it is likely to make its debut on Youtube.
I will concede that it is possible that attempts to repress new sources of energy have been successful thus far. If so, the internet will provide the leak for information that crumbles the wall. Secrets have always been difficult to obtain. Like the secret of how to make an atom bomb, how to make rifles, how to make printing presses, and PGP, it might well nigh be impossible to contain the information forever.
On the repression point; it seems the U.S. military has managed to get all research into inertial confinement approaches to fusion power outlawed and classified. So the only research going in the public domain is pretty much limited to magnetic confinement, an approach which seems doomed to failure. Maybe the way to sneak around this is with electrostatics;
Click to view link
Thanks again for your fine forum and for all you do in support of liberty.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Thanks for the clarifications and link.
Posted by Weeble on 09/12/10 04:32 AM
Nobody mentioned Herr Diesel, with respect to Ford being forced to use the gasoline engine so he could be a rich man.
I certainly would not want to have coal in my Christmas stock(er)ing. Although Casey Jones would say that idea is "steamin' and a rollin'." (I think he was on coke.) Just kiddin'.
With respect to power loss, sometimes explaining the blindingly obvious is needed (as you well know), and repetition is not lost on some.
All in all, I just wanted to get a fabulous Frank Zappa-ism in there as as my fuel for my non-existent fire. I just did not know I was going to end up where I did. Some of my soapboxes end up being quite the derby. Thanks for hosting. You are a "one-in-a-6.8 billion."
|
|





