Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on May 15, 2016
Rethinking the oil addiction
Oil prices become the news number three these days. The first lines are occupied by earning reports for the Q1 and Central bank rates. The black gold of the global industry is climbing to the $50 per barrel. However, the point is still unreachable. WTI changed hands at $46.16 a barrel, close to a six-month peak of 46.78 hit on April 29. Brent from the North Sea melted to $47.74 a barrel; the highest since a six-month peak of 48.50 reached on April 29. Oil prices were supported by the fall of inventory level in the USA to 540 million barrels last week, instead of increasing to 714 million barrels according to forecasts.
To understand the trend of oil prices is necessary for recognizing the vector of the global economy. The main factors for the healthy oil market are decreasing of output and urgent attempts to kill off petrol slavery.
The decrease of the output is a fact in the USA, Canada, and Nigeria. The USA is surviving through the war against the technology for shale oil extraction, which has been initiated by Saudis in July 2014. The wildfire in the North Canada interrupted the production. The fire in the oil sands is expected to continue burning for months, declining the output. Notwithstanding the disaster, workers are ready to return to the rigs in Canada. As for Nigeria, the wave of violence causes the output to fall to 20 years low. An export terminal was attacked by a militant group Niger Delta Avengers in February. Since the attacks the terminal is still far from its best performance. Brazil and Venezuela slightly declined production, according to The Financial times. Russians are pessimistic about exploiting new oil field. On Friday Shell reported about more than 2,000 barrels of oil gushed into the Gulf of Mexico. Less oil at the market – high prices per barrel.
However, the Persian Gulf is still pumping “easy to get” oil matching demands of the globe. Saudi Arabia and Iran will never agree to cut the production struggling to protect their market shares. A new oil minister in Riyadh Khalid al-Falih replaced Ali al-Naimi as the Oil Kingdom reforms its ministries according to the long term strategy to release the state budget from the impact of the weak oil market and to create a new investment fund. Nevertheless, the new oil minister will continue the same policy of pumping and selling the oil for a penny.
As for petrodollars and “petrol lobby”, the most powerful companies are ready to produce some plastic goods instead of drilling. Exxon Mobile benefits in the Q1 thanks to its chemical plants, shifting the activity from researching and extracting oil. 74% of their earnings came from the chemistry! To kill off the petrol slavery is possible thanks to the alternative energy resources. New projects are coming on the avant-scene very soon. A new Tesla car is ready to replace old vehicles, sun batteries are conquering the world – give the world five years to change the face. We will be ready to replace petrol by the clean and green energy.
15 Comments on "Rethinking the oil addiction"
makati1 on Sun, 15th May 2016 6:23 am
The Jerusalem Post – Israel News
More bullshit coming from the biggest sucker on the American taxpayer sponsored teat, Israel.
joe on Sun, 15th May 2016 8:04 am
Might not be that simple. Where solar replaces oil, that oil energy benefit will be passed to developing nations. They cant pay for it yet, they need to develop governence standards capable of sustaining a car/services sector. To do that they need laws, and law enforcement and a fair systems of delivering reliable punishments which both protect property both physical and intellectual but do not terrify people. Its a hard balance to strike, but when it does work, it works forever.
Once the concepts and frameworks are in place the next stage is easy. Development banks and national services providers, with the goal of privatisation. An interesting one to watch in the next decade will be Myanmar and Vietnam. Hope they have good luck.
Oil may be here for a long time. The real question is this, if the west no longer wants or uses oil, will it stop the world from using it, or give up its place as captain of the spigot?
makati1 on Sun, 15th May 2016 8:36 am
More American exceptionalism joe? More bullshit, I think. LOL
shortonoil on Sun, 15th May 2016 9:27 am
“Oil may be here for a long time.”
Not much chance of that! Within five years the cost of just replacing what is now being extracted will be about $150/ barrel (extrapolated from Steven Kopits data). The industry can no longer replace their reserves. When the existing fields are depleted out that will be the end, and that will only be a few more years. Oil may be around for a long time, if one has 5 or 6 slaves to bring along, to push the car home if they run out of gas.
Davy on Sun, 15th May 2016 9:49 am
Exactly short! This is why people who visit our board need to start a soul search on who they are and where they are and determine where they are going. This is a profoundly dangerous circumstance and wrong decsions will cost people much more than in the past when growth allowed for second chances. Climate change is likewise a danger and together with the dead state of oil are our greatest challenges.
shortonoil on Sun, 15th May 2016 1:42 pm
“Exactly short! This is why people who visit our board need to start a soul search on who they are and where they are and determine where they are going.”
If you have noticed I have stayed out of the climate change debate for many years. The reason is that the IIPC models that everyone wants to endorse are fuzzing science at best. My specialty is the depletion of the world’s oil reserves, which is a direct application of very fundamental physical laws. But, the information that comes out of NOAA and Woods Hole is a different story. They have done extensive, and verifiable analysis of how fast the world’s oceans are heating up. The EIA has given us fairly accurate data on fossil fuel consumption (we know that from the conclusions that have been derived from the Etp Model). That said, you don’t need a $billion super computer to calculate the result. My $299 HP is more than adequate.
The heat dumped into the environment from burning fossil fuels is more than sufficient to result in a mass die off the the world’s oceans in the next 50 years. No CO2 needed. The world had better get its collective head out of its posterior orifice while it can!
http://www.thehillsgroup.org/
onlooker on Sun, 15th May 2016 1:48 pm
Short we do not need to wait 50 years it has already begun.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/page/dead-fish-mysterious-mass-animal-deaths-found-world-12565986
http://www.activistpost.com/2016/05/all-of-a-sudden-fish-are-dying-by-the-millions-all-over-the-planet.html
Apneaman on Sun, 15th May 2016 2:43 pm
Some people who claim to know physics need to go back to physics kindergarten. Like from the 1800’s.
A brief history of climate science
“Then, in 1861, the Irish physicist John Tyndall performed an experiment which changed our view of the atmosphere. Tyndall demonstrated that gases such as methane and carbon dioxide absorbed infrared radiation, and could trap heat within the atmosphere. He immediately realised the implications and remarked that these gases “would produce great effects on the terrestrial rays and produce corresponding changes of climate.”
https://theconversation.com/a-brief-history-of-climate-science-18578
Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation
“Molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) can absorb energy from infrared (IR) radiation. This animation shows a molecule of CO2 absorbing an incoming infrared photon (yellow arrows). The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Shortly thereafter, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide stops vibrating.
This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy is what makes CO2 an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas. Not all gas molecules are able to absorb IR radiation. For example, nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth’s atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons. CO2 molecules can vibrate in ways that simpler nitrogen and oxygen molecules cannot, which allows CO2 molecules to capture the IR photons.
Greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect play an important role in Earth’s climate. Without greenhouse gases, our planet would be a frozen ball of ice. In recent years, however, excess emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities (mostly burning fossil fuels) have begun to warm Earth’s climate at a problematic rate. Other significant greenhouse gases include water vapor (H2O), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and ozone (O3).”
http://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation
short why don’t you just admit the real reason you “have stayed out of the climate change debate for many years” is because you have no evidence for your pet theory?
This is why when you do weigh in you need to conflate. Conflate the IPCC with the research and evidence. The IPCC does not do any research. They just make projections (pathways) based on others research and make “policy recommendations”. They are a semi corrupted political organization that was created by TPTB to manage the scientists and science. This is why the only time I have ever mentioned them is to point this out. This is why, as anyone following along has observed, many scientists never even mention them anymore – they have been distancing themselves. They barely come up in explainer articles written by knowledgeable science journalists either. You would know this if you actually read them, but you prefer to cling to your favorite pseudo science western white boy denier memes from a decade or two ago. The other reason you “stay out” is because I’m here and you know I’ll mop the fucking floor with you or any lame assed shit you got. Go ahead short – prove me wrong. Throw down. Here’s your chance to embarrass me with the facts.
Your willful ignorance and denial does not disprove the Etp Model, but it stretches your credibility to the max with anyone who understands even just the basic physics behind the mechanisms of greenhouse gasses.
Where there’s smoke there’s fire is a logical fallacy, but it’s the very first thing that pops into the human brain when they spot someone with an agenda being dishonest. There is no damn reason someone as intelligent as you should be a denier other than to protect your worldview and manage your personal guilt issues. Man up for fucks sake.
Apneaman on Sun, 15th May 2016 3:06 pm
The deniers were sort of right all along – just in the opposite direction.
Survivable IPCC projections are based on science fiction – the reality is much worse
The IPCC’s ‘Representative Concentration Pathways’ are based on fantasy technology that must draw massive volumes of CO2 out of the atmosphere late this century, writes Nick Breeze – an unjustified hope that conceals a very bleak future for Earth, and humanity.
Dr Nutt’s conclusion points to very important factor that we can elaborate on with a rare case of certainty. There is no proposed CDR technology that can be scaled up to suck billions of tonnes out of the Earth’s atmosphere. It simply does not exist in the real world.
This is reiterated by Dr Hugh Hunt in the Department of Engineering, at the University of Cambridge, who points out:
“10 billion tonnes a year of carbon sequestration? We don’t do anything on this planet on that scale. We don’t manufacture food on that scale, we don’t mine iron ore on that scale. We don’t even produce coal, oil or gas on that scale. Iron ore is below a billion tonnes a year! How are we going to create a technology, from scratch, a highly complicated technology, to the tune of 10 billion tonnes a year in the next 10 years?”
http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2772427/survivable_ipcc_projections_are_based_on_science_fiction_the_reality_is_much_worse.html
IPCC created by TPTB to manage the science and scientists so as not to interupt BAU. Known for years.
Climate Science Predictions Prove Too Conservative
Checking 20 years worth of projections shows that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has consistently underestimated the pace and impacts of global warming
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-science-predictions-prove-too-conservative/
No grand conspiracy, just the way human society and institutions work. Little bit of intimidation and pressure from TPTB, little bit of group think, little bit of worry about paying the mortgage and feeding the family and the normal human desire not to be the messenger of the most dire news.
http://www.democracynow.org/2015/12/8/top_climate_expert_crisis_is_worse
Davy on Sun, 15th May 2016 3:10 pm
Excellent comment Short!
Dustin Hoffman on Sun, 15th May 2016 6:50 pm
Wish my boy Evan Jones of the Willard Rat Anthony Watt pack was here to display Dr. Twist and Spin.
Yes. According to IPCC AR5, we will see “net benefit” from AGW until at least 2060, even using the refuted CMIP models.
And by that time it is exceedingly unlikely we will be using fossil fuels, at least for electricity generation in the DCs. We could convert to nukes as it is, starting today, if we wished (and as Hansen advocates). It is a no-brainer that if AGW is an existential threat (which it is not), the risks associated with nukes are inestimably less
That is the real reason I stay out of the so called climate change discussion…
Pointless jibberish
Apneaman on Sun, 15th May 2016 8:00 pm
Hey Ratso, got a link showing these “net benefits”? Just asking cause I feel like moping the fucking floor again. Bring it on.
Dustin Hoffman on Sun, 15th May 2016 10:57 pm
Go to Willard’s website at wattsup and ask for Evan Jones. He’s a team player there. As a matter of fact ‘ap’, I’ve been sparing with this denialist for YEARS! We had thousands of comment exchanges already and he can twist and spin with the PROS. He last appeared on disquis during the Paris Climate Conference to post. He is part of a team of ‘volunteers’ that think the siting of temperature reading stations are corrupted. Never mind the Arctic is melting faster than cheese on a grill.
Let me warn you. This guy, Evan Jones,is beyond reason….he is something that lives in another dimension.
Really, just posted as an example of watt we are up against…the status quo is determined to stay the course no matter watt.
Apneaman on Mon, 16th May 2016 12:05 am
I wouldn’t piss on Watts if he was on fire. In fact, I’d dump gas on him and whip out the marshmallows. Same for all his retard cohorts and their imbecilic conspiracy theories.
“for YEARS!”
Dustin Hoffman, you should be honored with the most patient and tolerant person of the decade award.
I’ll give them an over the top rant if they happen to show up and I feel like playing, but I would never go looking for them. Pointless IMO. True believers can never be swayed by facts and often not even reality (Houston, Fort McMurray most recently). Those hardcore true believers – their numbers are really quite small now. They just loud and well funded. Most people know somethings up even if not the details. They just not saying it out loud for tribal reasons. I bet there are many closet doomers out there. The end of Industrial Civilization ones, not the apocalyptic ones – most are psychologically incapable of going there and never will no matter how bad it gets. Which is normal.
Your brain won’t allow you to believe the apocalypse could actually happen
“You may love stories about the end of the world, but that’s probably because, deep down, you don’t believe it could ever happen. But that’s not because you’re realistic. It’s actually a quirk of the human brain, recently explored by a group of neuroscientists, which prevents us from adjusting our expectations about the future — even if there’s good evidence that bad things are about to happen.”
http://io9.gizmodo.com/5848857/your-brain-wont-allow-you-to-believe-the-apocalypse-could-actually-happen
Me, I go where the evidence takes me. I’m with Frank.
Humans will be extinct in 100 years says eminent scientist
“(PhysOrg.com) — Eminent Australian scientist Professor Frank Fenner, who helped to wipe out smallpox, predicts humans will probably be extinct within 100 years, because of overpopulation, environmental destruction and climate change.
Fenner, who is emeritus professor of microbiology at the Australian National University (ANU) in Canberra, said homo sapiens will not be able to survive the population explosion and “unbridled consumption,” and will become extinct, perhaps within a century, along with many other species.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2010-06-humans-extinct-years-eminent-scientist.html#jCp“
Kenz300 on Mon, 16th May 2016 9:17 am
Climate Change is real….. we will all be impacted by it……
Exxon’s Climate Change Cover-Up Is ‘Unparalleled Evil,’ Says Activist
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-evil-bill-mckibben_561e7362e4b028dd7ea5f45f?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green§ion=green