Why Dems and Republicans Are Afraid of Two Words: Peak Oil

[depakid]

This is a good general article to share with folks who still aren't familiar with peak oil....

"In 1956, M. King Hubbert, a petroleum geologist with Shell Oil, presented a paper to the American Petroleum Institute that predicted US oil production would peak in the early 1970s and then follow a declining curve, now known as Hubbert's curve. But Hubbert almost didn't get to give his paper. He got a call from his bosses at Shell, who asked him to "tone it down." His reply was that there was nothing to tone down. It was just straightforward analysis. He presented the paper, unedited. You can read the whole story here.

Since that time, the oil industry and its political supporters have done everything they can to tone down the message that oil is a finite resource and that we will run out of it some day. Why would they do that? To further the short-sighted, short-term pursuit of profit. In 2004, Shell finally got caught in a lie about the size of its oil reserves. The company had inflated the stated size of its oil reserves to keep stock share prices high because who wants to invest in a company -- or an industry -- that is going the way of the dinosaurs?

In 1972, just as oil production in the United States reached its all-time peak, a group of computer modelers from MIT released a study called "The Limits to Growth." They predicted a steep decline in natural resources of all kinds. Because reserve numbers for many minerals, including oil, were not accurately known back then, they looked at different scenarios. Some showed us running out of oil before 2000 and some showed the peak occurring toward the middle of the 21st century.

The pro-growth faction reacted quickly and scathingly to the idea that there could be limits to growth. The MIT scientists were treated like Cassandras in academia and in the press. This strategy of killing the messenger, the bearer of bad news, soon permeated American politics. Jimmy Carter tried to grapple with the energy crisis in the late 1970s with support for energy alternatives and conservation, but he was ridiculed by the media and American consumers were not able to hear the message. Ronald Reagan walked away with the presidency and promptly tore the solar panels off the roof of the White House. Ever since then, it has somehow been "not polite" to talk about limits to growth.

Today, despite skyrocketing oil prices, most politicians still avoid the term "peak oil." Most of the media still treat peak oil advocates with skepticism, using epithets like "fringe" and "so-called"to describe peak oil theory.

More: http://www.alternet.org/environment/85841/

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Put "peak oil" on the list with:

1. Trade deficit
2. Budget deficit
3. Federal debt to the tune of $9 trillion
4. Mass foreclosures
5. Global warming
6. Bankruptcy
7. One payor health insurance

Don't worry! Be happy!

[Hydra]

2. According to my textbook at school in the 1980's

Oil was supposed to run out in 20 years.

How is it that such a thing didn't happen?

Here's a better question- Why aren't they panicked? Cuz they aren't.

Reality means nothing when you control the information.

[GliderGuider]

3. You misread that textbook, or the author was misinformed.

In the 1980's some oil analysts (including King Hubbert) felt that the global oil supply would peak around 1995 or 2000. It probably would have, except the oil shocks of the '70s and '80s caused a massive reduction in consumption that delayed the peak by about 10 years. Nobody credible was saying oil would "run out" by 2000, they usually said there would be increasing shortages and rising prices due to supply constraints. And guess what, here they are, ten years later than originally forecast, but right on schedule.

Why are "they" not panicking? Actually if you read between the lines it's pretty clear that they are. They just want to keep you from panicking, so they put on their best cornucopian poker faces and grease the media with money to try and make sure the message gets out. The media control has slipped badly in the last month though. There are now lots and lots of newspaper stories appearing in the WSJ, NYT, FT and other top rags talking about Peak Oil. Television is getting the message out too, especially CNBC and Bloomberg, with interviews of major players like Matt Simmons, Boone Pickens and Jim Kunstler, all talking about how Peak Oil is happening NOW.

The current run-up in crude prices is the clearest sign of panic I could imagine.

[Hydra]

4. That's the whole point

When Cheney and Bush are talking about Peak Oil to excuse profiteering, and are standing directly in the way of alternatives, you know something else is going on.

Perhaps my textbook was incorrect...but there it was, the glaring official word of on high(paraphrasing):

"At current consumption levels, the world's oil supplies will be exhausted in 20 years, with natural gas lasting approximately 70 years."

Mind you, I don't like getting involved with this argument since passions run so high(and facts so thin), and because I don't support the use of oil in any way.

OTOH, more and more evidence is coming out that this is all a scam.

[GliderGuider]

5. Are Cheney and Bush talking about Peak Oil?

I'm positive they know about it, but I haven't heard either of them say anything that bold.

One fact that's not in dispute: global oil production has been on a plateau since some time in 2004. In those four years demand everywhere has kept rising. Mexico's output is crashing, Russia's output is now in decline, Indonesia and Britain are now net oil importers, three of the world's four biggest oil fields (Cantarell, Burgan and Daqing) are in decline and the last one (Ghawar) is at best on a plateau.

The main scam I can see is that the political/economic/industrial forces in our civilization (not just in the US) are actively working to prevent people from putting the pieces together regarding how close to the wall we really are.

[Hydra]

7. Cheney was one of the first to speak about it, actually

And Bush gave a SOTU comment regarding it as well.

The Saudis recently admitted that they are opting to keep the oil in the ground. We are busy keeping the oil in the ground in Iraq. Oil companies caught underproducing the the refineries, and cutting shipments in.

I smell a dead fish, but as I said, I don't like arguing this issue except in regards to the crimes being committed, because we REALLY need to stop using oil. Completely. Now.

[kristopher]

6. The peak oil 'movement' as it is portrayed on this forum is a classic 'conspiracy theory.'

There is no basis for their claims that aren't explained much better by the commonly accepted economic motives of the oil producers and refiners.

They blatantly ignore the abundance of evidence showing their doomsday scenarios to be false. Just like any other doomsday cult, the failures of past predictions somehow don't mean to them their thesis is flawed.

[Zachstar]

8. Show us oil has not peaked..

[4dsc]

19. He won't...

EOM

[Indiana_Dem]

9. I disagree. I don't believe it's a conspiracy theory. nt

[Zachstar]

10. In my view he is just posting flamebait.

Oil has peaked and only an idiot in my view thinks otherwise.

[Zachstar]

11. Have a look at this and tell me we are NOT past peak oil

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/3/story.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10511710

[Hydra]

12. I certainly agree with that when it comes to the ones who won't talk about solutions

And keep repeating the mantra of how we are all doomed.

Funny how many good ideas get swatted or ignored by such people.

[Zachstar]

13. What ideas?

[Hydra]

14. This is hardly the first peak oil post

And on at least 3 occasions that I saw personally, alternatives to oil as fuel, fertilizer and chemical products were met with blank silence by people screaming about how we are all doomed.

Others use the excuse to push forward nuclear tech, which I think is a HUGE mistake.

Prove to me that you actually WANT a solution, rather than rant-time, and I'll think about dredging the archives for the posts.

Personally, I don't care anymore. I live in a country full of people who stand silent or even supportive of torture. My days of advocacy are done.

[Zachstar]

15. I am a fan of the real solution which is fusion.

And I HOPE that people take it seriously.

http://www.emc2fusion.org/

[losthills]

60. Thank God for Fusion!!! We're saved!

[Mojorabbit]

16. But you are denying it is happening

and the more people who deny it, the less time we have to mobilize for solutions. Having studied the topic before oil went sky high I think we waited too late.

[Zachstar]

17. NASA sent off warnings during the Skylab program.

Few cared. They saw the multitudes of offshore oil wells popping up and thought oil was going to last cheaply for a thousand years.

Too bad it is going to take a global depression to finally get people to fully accept fossil fuels suck. There are STILL many people touting it as a lasting resource.

[Hydra]

18. I am denying that it's happening

Just like I called out the "energy crisis" in Cali. I was told that such a thing was impossible at the time.

What do you know- it WAS rigged.

As to me slowing down a solution...hardly. As I said before, I don't support the use of oil anyway, which is why it makes me mad that People are using this to advocate for nuclear tech with a straight face.

Water, Wind, Solar, Hydrogen, Hemp.

[Zachstar]

21. So where is all the Easy oil? In my back yard?

[depakid]

22. People suggest nuclear because it's a proven technology that provides exajoules of energy

In some regions of America, it may well amount to the difference between going down the depletion curve with the lights on- or with the lights off.

[Hydra]

35. Thank you for making my point

and I still say "NO NUKES"

[bhikkhu]

26. I don't know if there is a large scale practical solution

but there are individual solutions.

Petrochemicals are used extensively in agriculture, and their rising prices increase the burden of poverty and hunger. I compost extensively, making my own fertilizer, and have a large garden.

Gasoline is expensive and the cost of importing the crude to refine it is a great burden on our nation's finances. I have idled one car - my wife and I now share the most efficient - and drive every day as little as possible. We have cut our miles driven in half over the past couple years.

Natural gas is getting expensive with no relief in sight...I expect to spend some time this summer, using my "stimulus check", to insulate my house better and use less of it for heating. We also have renovated our old fireplace (rebuilt to better and more efficient proportions) and burn the various cuttings and wood scraps my projects generate, for additional heat.

Little steps, but something to be satisfied about. There are things we can do without running around shouting doom....

[Hydra]

36. There are large scale practical solutions

That are currently being blocked right now.

Kudos for helping reduce the problem, but I'm all about the solution.

As you say, there are plenty of things we can do rather than shouting doom or backing bad ideas posing as "solutions."

[4dsc]

20. Most people don't like the solutions offered..

I suppose you're one of those that don't like to listen to solutions about peak oil if they don't involve a "business as usual" solution, correct??

If a solution involved using less oil, alot less oil, would you be on board or blow it off as a doomsday approach?

[Hydra]

48. Did you want to look at any of my posts?

I said NO OIL, ASAP. I don't care who loses money or how hard it is supposed to be.

The doomsdayers I'm referring to keep repeating the mantra that nothing can replace our oil use. Like hell. The problem is too many people are profiting from it right now, not any "facts" that state that we cannot survive without our toxic black fluid addiction.

[neverforget]

23. Is oil a finite resource?

[kristopher]

24. Answering all

First the demand that I "show us oil has not peaked". Obviously you've studied at the Jerry Falwell School of Logic and Good Sense; he tends to like arguments of a similar nature, like "prove there isn't a god".

Reviewing the objections to my statement, it is clear that there is a confusion that exists: peak oil isn't the same as the end of cheap oil. Those are two different but related concepts; sort of like global warming and ozone depletion.

Many people confuse the two, but the end of cheap oil just means we have lost control of pricing and, since we have refused to budget ourselves we are going to be put on a budget by the rest of the world and the laws of supply and demand. Unfortunately for meat lovers, this means that cannibalism isn't just around the corner as the producers and refiners will wring every last drop of profit out of their existing capability before putting more on the market - but they WILL put more on the market when it makes financal sense for THEM that they do so.

Peak oil decline as presented on this forum means that profit is irrelevant and there is no amount of money to cause producers to increase production. With the vast amount of data available regarding known reserves and areas that have not even yet been explored for oil, only an idiot would believe that there simply isn't enough oil to keep civilization going.

The only thing going on is that the producers and refiners have taken control of inventory and stopped flooding the market just so Billy Bob and Myrtle can feel cool about driving the beagle around in a 6000 pound quasi-military vehicle.

Every societal upheaval brings the fruitcakes out of the woodwork, why should this one be any different?

This price increase is a good thing because of climate change. Just like we don't want to give up our addiction to cheap energy for national security, we also don't want to give it up for intergenerational equity - after all the rhetoric it turns out a significant number of our country's population really doesn't give a shit about the world they leave to their kids. Well, these high prices will turn the trick and force changes in both habits and technologies we should have been making anyway.

But if you want to be another chicken little and behave like Bush supporters wanting to invade Iraq over fears of WMD, then go right ahead and buy into this peak oil crap. The rest of us will be out here building a new, more sustainable country of electric automobiles, mass transit, diversified renewable power generation and an intelligent electrical grid that ties it all together.

[bhikkhu]

25. Facts support half of that, and I agree with your conclusions of a path forward.

So I have some respect for the optimism and intentions you have. Your objections to "peak oil theory" (which is after all just the description of how a finite resource runs out over time) seems to center upon its "chicken little" aspects - that is, the behaviors of many, as opposed to the array of the facts.

As it is, the behaviors have been largely dramatic over the past few years in the face of popular indifference. In the 70's, for instance, I was a vocal supporter of Carter's conservation measures, and concerned that US oil was diminishing and dependence on foreign oil was a prelude to much war. Few would now say that was incorrect, but it was at the time a minority position which was voted out of office and consigned, temporarily, to the dustbins of history. Through the 80's and 90's responsible energy policies have been entirely sidelined in favor of cornucopean expansion without any vision of an endpoint.

What we are in the midst of now is a realignment of the narrative. Energy issues are hitting every wallet and are front and center on the geopolitical stage. People like Kunstler who have been very vocal about the nature of the emerging problems are now switching gears to a "calm down" mode, as they find that shouting is not necessary when people are actually listening. What is needed is efficiency in the use of what we have, transitional technologies to end dependence of fossil fuels, and perhaps a new paradigm for the future which we now may not be able to envision.

The differences in perspective are slight, and the goals are the same, so don't be too hard on the "fruitcakes on the woodwork" - in most cases, we are on the same side.

[kristopher]

30. See other post

I don't have a problem with forecasting problems and trying to deal with them. And particularly I understand the publics' slowness and 'thickness' on problems that seem particularly urgent. So as to that aspect of what you describe, we agree. There is room for a variety of perspectives, and some of them are, as you say, on the same side. However, I think there is more to it. What is taking place is the dissemination of junk science. Period. I wont speculate as to motives, but the results are: 1) people that do not have complete facts on which to base decisions and 2) people who are being induced to think even more emotionally about a problem they are already emotionally invested in.

Now to me, those two elements smack of the same kind of sheep-dip thinking that keeps getting us into shit-pot places like Iraq.

[bhikkhu]

37. This would be the science I am looking at.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_Megaprojects

At least as the most valuable lately as a forecasting tool. Its through the Oil Drum, which is largely a very well informed circle, with a good understanding of the scientific method.

[kristopher]

42. What's missing

The oil drum has some good work included, but it is also a platform for the junk science I'm speaking of.

Your wiki page gives a partial explanation:
Section title: Application to oil supply forecasting
"The basic idea of Megaproject based forecasting is simple: the analyst totals up the capacity of all the new projects coming on in a given year, and uses this total to assess whether oil supply will be adequate. However, a number of factors complicate this simple picture."

It then goes on for two fairly long paragraphs giving a list of confounding variables; all related to the physical limitations of extraction. As a partial picture, there is nothing wrong with this approach except that just listing limitations of a method isn't the same as dealing with those limitations. The proper way to incorporate so much uncertainty isn't to declare it and then proceed to act as if it weren't there and then compare your results to someone else who is more often wrong than you (CERA). In fact, with just the limitations listed, the method is shown to be pure conjecture that can and is shaped to the authors desired outcome. It is therefore an example of junk science.

Even more problematic however, is the total omission of human intent related to market forces and geopolitical realities. Specifically I'm speaking of the US as a force for overproduction (and willing to destroy countries opposed to this aim) and the producers as stewards of their nation's natural resources.

[bhikkhu]

50. Oh well...if you consider the megaprojects database effort junk science...

there's not much more to be said. We have different definitions of things...I can only imagine some deep-seated personal bias against the field of study, extending to any science applied to it.

[kristopher]

53. Personal bias? That's your answer?

It has nothing to do with bias and everything to do with being able to recognize bullshit when I see it. Using the same methods of omission, I can make a hell of a case that electricity is really just a manifestation of magic fairies inhabiting wires. I'm not saying that studying the patterns of exploration, extraction and depletion is meaningless; just that the way it is being used in this popular 'research' lends itself to exploitation and false conclusions; it is that abuse which takes sound science of limited applicability and transforms it into 'junk science' offering invalid conclusions.

[bhikkhu]

56. Perhaps you didn't have time to read through...

the megaprojects effort is first data-gathering, assembling information about oil fields in development all over the world by gathering the input of everyone possible, as the Wikipedia itself does. This is then digested to the fields above a certain size, and the best projections of start up date and capacity are all assembled. It is the work of hundreds of people in and out of the industry, checked and rechecked with the same method as the Wikipedia is updated. The desired result is the ability to predict the added capacity of new production out a few years. Thats it.

I don't think it is junk science, and can only speculate as to the source of your definition. (I know - speculation is pretty useless, but it does keep arguments going, at least).

[kristopher]

57. This method is the basis for popular claims that are not nearly that narrow.

Claims that somehow seem to always involve catastrophic scenarios of the end of civilization. Claims that, as I've repeatedly said, completely ignore the geopolitical and economic forces at work.

[bhikkhu]

59. Ok, there I agree with you.

I am not into disaster movies and I don't watch tv or even read fiction...so perhaps I am out of touch with "popular claims".

But the science is one thing and the popular claims are another. The end of civilization is not so much a concern as the direction of civilization, and that concern is more of a practical matter of the best planning for the future. I think anyone who reads history in detail will be hard pressed to find a forty or fifty year period anywhere, in any age, where there wasn't some upheaval to be dealt with. People are resourceful and change is continual, and being prepared and pragmatic is better than being unprepared and closed-minded (or gullible and frightened, as you mention).

[depakid]

27. "the Jerry Falwell School of Logic and Good Sense"

The irony in that is that people like Falwell will deny (based on "faith") that a robust and repeatedly confirmed theory explains a natural phenomenon- in this case peak oil (though to varying degrees, Hubberts analysis applies to other finite resources as well).

Those who deny the validity and the likely consequences of peak oil differ little from those who deny evolution or climate change.

[kristopher]

28. You are deliberately conflating legitimate and illegitimate meanings

The factual existence of a probable peak in the production cycle of a finite resource is indisputable and is not the point being argued.

What we both know I'm talking about are those that used prepackaged, recycled junk science to make cockeyed claims about the state of the petroleum industry. There is no legitimate predictive literature on when we will experience "peak oil" because predicting the peak in advance IS IMPOSSIBLE. Especially when the methods used are TOTALLY BASED on PRODUCTION DATA yet totally disregard ALL input related to social and political variables affecting production. Combined with known reserve data, these exclusions assure that any claims we are "post peak" are equally spurious.

So I don't dispute the factual existence of natural phenomena, I just dispute that the speculations of the peak-oil internet 'circle-'have validity as a source of information on the topic.

[depakid]

29. ???

Not sure I get what you're talking about.

Hubbert's predictions were based on DISCOVERIES and the period of time between the peaking of discoveries and peaking of production. And they were pretty well spot on for the United States- and have been accurately applied elsewhere. There's absolutely no reason that they can't be aggregated on a global basis within a fairly narrow range.

And it appears FROM THE PRODUCTION DATA that in fact, we're now in that range.

In addition who's said ANYTHING about disregarding social and political variables (with respect to pricing I assume)?

That's a strawman if I ever saw one.

And like the rest of whatever you were trying to say, it's little more than bluster, denigrating the science because it gives you a probable result that you find disagreeable.

[kristopher]

31. That isn't what is being thrown about here and you know it.

There is nothing in your post that is verifiable as an objective prediction of when the production petroleum will begin an irreversible decline DUE TO GEOLOGIC CONSTRAINTS. None of the supporting literature that has been offered here is based on anything more than basic arithmetic regarding fluctuations in production statistics. Those same fluctuations being used as predictors of geologic constraints result from variables that are based on human social and economic decision making. Since those variables are not accounted for an ANY of the circle- literature, the basis of such a geologically oriented approach is inherently flawed in its near term predictive ability.

It is junk science.

[depakid]

32. You're either being disingenuous

or you fail to understand a fairly simple concept:





As Jean Laherrere noted, Hubbert was correct on the timing of the peak, though for various reasons, was incorrect about the ultimate output at peak. For our purposes, timing is far more important than ultimate output, particularly if we're interested in taking mitigative actions prior to disruptive economic events.

See: Forecasting Production From Discovery

http://www.mnforsustain.org/oil_forecasting_production_using_discovery_laherrere505.htm

[kristopher]

33. I'm neither.

It isn't complicated, you are correct. Your curves show one thing: a lag between discovery and production. It is not valid data speaking to the causal agent behind the curves. The fact that there is a delay between discovery and extraction isn't an unequivocal indicator of exhaustion of the resource. The fact that there is a coincident decline in exploration/discovery and extraction is, again, not an unequivocal indicator of resource exhaustion.

The delay is normal lead time for project development, and the decline in BOTH exploration and extraction are perfectly explained by increased industry efficiency and pending imposition of carbon costs leading to declining long term demand.

You are peddling junk science.

Why?

[bhikkhu]

34. Why? Because if its true and we do nothing we're screwed

And then our kids are screwed, and then our grandkids are screwed, and generations wonder why we did nothing.

One odd thing is that you generally promote renewables and technological solutions. In my lifetime these have languished on the sidelines; no one is interested as long as they believe we have an endless stream of oil. One of the values of the "speculation of the internet cirlce of peak oil theorists" has been to interest people in solutions such as you advocate.

[kristopher]

41. It isn't odd. I just don't lie when the truth isn't on my side.

"no one is interested as long as they believe we have an endless stream of oil."

There are several things wrong with this statement. What I think you mean more precisely is that the US doesn't pursue alternatives to petroleum for transportation because we have been awash in cheap oil. I mean, surely you don't think that the very large number of us who are concerned about climate change want us to continue using petroleum do you?

I'm afraid I don't see the same value you do in this scaremongering. I see another erosion of public trust in what valid science actually can tell us and a distorted evaluation of the problem leading to poor decision-making - primarily support for the erroneous and premature turn to nuclear as "the" answer to our energy problems. We may need nuclear to address climate change, but there are plenty of other solutions to start with while the timeline on GW firms up.

Far from creating interest in renewables, the most common stance is one that claims (sans evidence) the crisis is so severe there simply is no time to implement renewables which aren't able to solve the problem anyway. As I read the propaganda surrounding 'peak oil' I see a classic sales approach in creating a fear of loss coupled with an outline of alternatives that portrays nuclear as the best of a bad lot. Reluctant support is still support, and it is the first step to strong support.

[Zachstar]

38. Where is the cheap oil?

[depakid]

40. You're not making any sense at all

It really is like "arguing" with a climate skeptic.

[kristopher]

44. Again you resort to ad hominem.

You assert much and support nothing. Throwing out a chart and acting like you know what you're talking about isn't the same as simply making a logical argument and then, maybe, supporting it with evidence that actually does support it.

[depakid]

47. Just calling a spade a spade

Your "arguments" in the previous post, if one can call them that- are neither logical nor data based.

For example: WTF do you mean by "causal agent?" I assume you're talking about rising prices, and if so, then its been widely acknowledged that there are many "causal agents" in play: increasing scarcity, growing demand outstripping production quantities and rates (which are based on hard data that we see "in the rearview mirror), trading behavior in the markets (which is at best based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_rationality">bounded rationality or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospect_theory">prospect theory), and expansive monetary policy with respect to the world's reserve currency.

None of these are mutually exclusive- indeed, they're interactive.

Which make the situation more precarious, once one accepts the paradigm demonstrated and defined by the relevant science.

[kristopher]

51. Causal agent would be the force/forces behind the production curves you pointed to.

As to your comments on pricing, I agree. That is precisely my point related to production. The simplistic argument that current high prices are proof of 'peak oil' and that collapse of the world economy is therefore right around the corner are idiocy.

As to your remark about accepting a paradigm, it's another of your pointless statements. Specifically what paradigm and what science? So far there has been no science offered to support the contentions that current high prices are proof of 'peak oil' and that collapse of the world economy is therefore right around the corner. There has been nothing but fear mongering and junk science like the way you attempted to use that graph.

[phantom power]

52. are you asking about the cause of the time-lag?

[kristopher]

54. No.

The causes of the time lag are fairly obvious.

[depakid]

58. There you go with strawmen again

"Proof" that we've reached production peak lies in the production data- which many learned folks have had a look at and concluded that it appears we're at or past peak. At the VERY least, we've reached a plateau. And what happens when a resource reaches a plateau of production- where demand meets or exceeds supply is PRICE VOLATILITY.

In other words- what we're seeing now is exactly what we'd expect to see (particularly given the psychology of markets where traders anticipate future shortfalls).

Is seeing what we'd expect to see ipso facto "proof?" Of course not- and NOBODY claimed it was (hence your strawman), though it IS one more piece of evidence- one more factor that leads to an inevitable conclusion that cornucopians can't (or refuse to) wrap their minds around.

So like climate skeptics, they bluster, obfuscate and deny (using, incidentally- the very same sort of language).

e.g. "junk science" "fear mongering" and "hockey stick" err... I mean disparaging graphs of hard data that forecast trends and lead to conclusions they dislike.

[Zachstar]

39. Where is the cheap oil?

[kristopher]

43. What are you asking; why the price of oil has increased?

"Cheap oil" is oil where the buyer is setting the price. Are we irreplaceable buyers in today's markets? Or do we have to compete for the oil?

Are there shortages? Do you have to stand in line to buy your ration of gasoline? Then there is no shortage, we are just paying the market price for the product.

[Zachstar]

45. Again I ask. If we are not at peak oil then where is all the cheap oil?

[kristopher]

46. Expensive oil doesn't equal peak oil.

simple enough for you?

[Zachstar]

49. Not good enough, I asked where the cheap oil is, not conspiricy theories.

[kristopher]

55. What conspiracy theories?

You mean the ones that say it's rational to maximize profits on a finite natural resource in high demand?

As opposed to the claim that most of the oil producers are hiding the fact that they are running out of oil in order to make more money? The proof offered to support that hokem is the "fact" that the producers aren't pumping their little hearts out because the price is (what you consider to be) high, of course, ignores two very obvious fallacies: pumping a lot more doesn't increase profits because it lowers prices, and if they WERE running out the best way to maximize profits would be to convince everyone they ARE running out so that the prices would rise because of perceived scarcity.