Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on May 10, 2014
Foreign Peak Oil Theory Speech as a Strategy?
This worries me.
Is talking about these issues a potential market tactic?
There are global leaders that could seize the Peak Oil issue and use it simply to create some chaos and impart economic harm on the west. Those with oil reserves would be further motived as it could increase the price of oil as well as their global profile. All they’d need to do is speak intelligently on the issue. Act as a “first mover” for the planet. Would that be good (to bring the issue to light) or bad (due to market destabilization)? Not sure.
They could talk about EROI. Perhaps, the lack of field discoveries that rival the ones we’re chugging now. The approaching decline of the most productive fields on Earth. The idea that fracking, deep water drilling and long expensive pipelines are stop gaps to delay the obvious future we face. If they adopted the Peak Oil issue for their benefit, it could in essence, self fulfill it by creating panic.
Chavez would have been the most likely to go this route, but with him now deceased, who would be next? Not sure. And hope not. But in an increasingly oil reliant world with increasing hard to access oil, the leader that makes this their issue of choice will be able to do so without appearing to be adversarial, while the impact of it will be highly detrimental to the global economy. Perhaps we need people to take this topic seriously, but it’s also known to be bad for business (the markets) to talk about it.
Imagine if Obama started spouting about a future with oil shortages. People would flip and so would the markets. A foreign leader doing so will have a similar impact if they chose to do so. People will start to Google this in large numbers, which is not what the economy wants.
The Hirsch Report
Think anyone with anti-western goals would try to use the scientific community against the western economy? We’re able to operate while ignoring it for the most part, but what if someone else forces it in our face while taking the high road? They’d have US Department of Energy reports to back them up. It’s a strategy. Hopefully a crazy one. Or perhaps we’ll be saved by our own leadership framing the issue first. Maybe that’s our best bet. I wish I had answers. Only questions.
In the meantime I’ve added some exposure in my portfolio to small and nimble oil companies that can access hard to get resources as well as alternative energy companies. Also just planted this year’s garden. You?
“We’re able to operate while ignoring it for the most part, but what if someone else forces it in our face while taking the high road? They’d have US Department of Energy reports to back them up. It’s a strategy. Hopefully a crazy one.
7 Comments on "Foreign Peak Oil Theory Speech as a Strategy?"
Plantagenet on Sat, 10th May 2014 11:55 am
Expecting Obama to start talking about peak oil is silly. He’s the guy who got elected by promising to make the US “energy independent” in 2008 and re-electing by promising a 100-year-supply of natural gas in 2012.
GregT on Sat, 10th May 2014 12:17 pm
“This worries me.”
As it should. We all should be very worried about the implications of an energy reduced future.
“Is talking about these issues a potential market tactic?”
No. Not talking about these issues IS a market tactic. The markets are a human created idea, and in no way reflect the reality of a finite planet with finite resources.
“In the meantime I’ve added some exposure in my portfolio to small and nimble oil companies that can access hard to get resources as well as alternative energy companies.”
Sorry, but your “portfolio” is nothing more than an expectation that you will be able to capitalize on finite resources before someone else does. This includes your children, and your grandchildren.
“Imagine if Obama started spouting about a future with oil shortages. People would flip and so would the markets.”
Regardless of whether Obama is spouting about a future of oil shortages or not, oil shortages are a future reality. Obama has no bearing on that reality. Obama is a human being, just like the rest of us. He is not a god,
and he is not in control of anything. At best, he is a puppet for the market profiteers. The markets will ‘flip’ without the puppets’ influence. Ignore this at your own peril.
diemos on Sat, 10th May 2014 12:29 pm
US energy independence is inevitable …
and boy will you hate it when it gets here.
US energy independence will arrive when there’s nothing left to steal.
bobinget on Sat, 10th May 2014 1:11 pm
This speech was made six years ago.
So much has happened since.
GregT on Sat, 10th May 2014 2:36 pm
“This speech was made six years ago.
So much has happened since.”
Yah, sorry, missed that. Things have improved dramatically since 08. WTF was I thinking?
rockman on Sun, 11th May 2014 11:45 am
But the story does raise a point I’ve thought to bring up a time or two here: what the heck difference does any one saying anything make to the daily reality? Big Oil, the POTUS, Green Peace, Bloomberg, etc. can offer any set of extremely contradictory statements. In particular I mean how do their WORDS (and not actions which often don’t match their WORDS) effect a person when they are at the gas pump: top off because Big Oil says there’s plenty? Don’t top off, park the car and take a bus because of the GP warning about GHG?
Lots of examples but everyone can make there own list. My observation of everyone in my world is that almost everyone is doing exactly what the want to do (and can afford to do). Put up solar panels or buy pickup that get 12 mpg. I don’t drill wells because we are heading down the PO path or because the country needs to reduce oil imports. I drill wells because that’s how I make a living. It wouldn’t matter if PO hit 5 years ago or not for another 50 years.
“Imagine if Obama started spouting about a future with oil shortages.” Been done to some degree by more than one POTUS from President Carter to the last President Bush. I even vaguely recall President Nixon spouting off about it a bit.
And we are still exactly where we are regardless of all those words from these “influential” folks. It can be good sport to criticize one side of the debate or the other for their statements about PO, GHG etc. But what have those WORDS really changed? In reality there hasn’t been a lot of significant VOLUNTARY actions taken on the subjects IMHO. So if folks don’t see a real change in their personal world that induces them to alter their activities why would just hearing what someone somewhere in the world says anything?
And if their reality is significantly impacted in a negative way they respond in a fashion that won’t be dependent on what anyone says to them IMHO. I doubt we reduced driving in the US because someone said it was important because of PO. I’m pretty sure oil going from $35/bbl to $100/bbl had a more significant than anything a politician and a poster at TOD had to say.
Boat on Sun, 11th May 2014 12:31 pm
rockman,
Exactly, government can distort the market in small ways and small areas with subsidies but most major changes come because there is profit to be made by making the product cheaper or holding on to a competitive edge by making the product with more efficient means.
As with the case of coal, regulations for emissions can drive out older less efficient plants but the newer ones are expected to survive and make money.