Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on May 5, 2016
They’re Lying to You About Peak Oil, and Making a Fortune in the Process
The end of oil as we know it … Oil has crashed. But a short-term drop in the price of oil is nothing compared with the end of demand for oil as we know it. The more extreme scenario is what Bernstein Research is now talking about. Energy analyst Neil Beveridge is out with a new note that explores the question of demand — with a prediction that the end of oil as we know it is coming in 2030. –Business Insider
Oil production was supposed to decline and leave the world in chaos and on the verge of starvation. It never happened though, and we knew it wouldn’t.
The concept was known as Peak Oil, and it was a lie.
Now another lie is coming to the fore: the idea that the West and the world are migrating eagerly toward “renewable resources.”
It is an enforced migration, not a voluntary one.
The question for consumers and investors alike is whether it is going to be effective or resisted, as it was in the 1970s. Hundreds of billions and even trillions hang in the balance.
It may sound odd that we argue the energy industry in all its vastness is manipulated. But if you go back in time, you can get some idea of the scale of manipulation that existed and still exists.
We spent well over a decade writing articles about Peak Oil and confronting a plethora of Peak Oil websites that posted article after article claiming that accessible oil was increasingly rare.
None of these websites or the people behind them would consider that their arguments were based on deliberate fallacies.
For instance in the late 1800s, John D. Rockefeller sent his executives over to Europe to attend an initial chemistry conference. They were under strict orders not to return until they had figured out a way to establish that oil was based on the same chemistry that defined other life forms.
Once Rockefeller obtained his manufactured evidence, the marketing of oil as a depleting resource began in earnest. Sinclair Oil even adopted a dinosaur as its logo and mascot.
The Peak Oil concept itself was created in the 1930s by one of the founders of the Technocracy movement, M. King Hubbert.
Hubbert believed Peak Oil would occur in the mid-to-late 20th century. Subsequently, for one reason or another, the date kept moving up. Then recently, the entire concept collapsed along with the price of oil.
Peak Oil depended on people believing that oil was a scarce commodity. Henry Kissinger put this belief structure to good use when he traveled to Saudi Arabia in 1971 and made it clear that the House of Saud was to sell oil for dollars and nothing else.
This created the famous petrodollar, based on oil scarcity. Saudi Arabia’s ability to insist on the oil-dollar trade was rooted in its role as the number one producer of oil.
In order to maintain Saudi Arabia’s primacy, other sources of oil were repressed. But recently, the same forces that created the petrodollar have begun to disassemble it. The easiest way to undermine the petrodollar is to find other sources of energy.
Once Saudi Arabia becomes just one producer of oil among many, its ability to maintain the petrodollar becomes increasingly tenuous.
As additional sources of oil are discovered, nations increasingly pay for energy in currencies other than the dollar. Nations don’t have to hold dollars anymore and the US’s ability to print unlimited amounts is thus lessened.
This is how the dollar dies, via commodity manipulation created by the same Western elites that created the scarcity – and thus the petrodollar – in the first place.
Now that we have examined previous manipulations, let us examine the gradual decline of oil consumption and the rise of alternative energy – and how that is being manipulated.
Call alternative energy the “new” Peak Oil. It’s being aggressively funded all over the world. Meanwhile, the use of oil and coal is gradually being legislated out of existence.
Oil and gas are fairly easily extracted from the ground. They can be easily transported as well. It is energy you can carry with you.
Solar and wind energy, among other forms, are being manufactured in huge “farms.” Therefore these sorts of energy are controlled at a corporate and government level.
The power that is generated will be available at a domestic level. But power will not be obtainable or transportable by the individual.
The availability of this kind of power gives transnational corporations and government agencies tremendous leverage to influence people’s lifestyles and living conditions.
The rise of alternative energy will be driven by three factors, according to the Business Insider article.
Less use: Developed nations will continually and aggressively reduce the use of oil.
Fuel efficiency: New and better technologies will depress oil consumption.
Climate change: Political activism will generate anti-oil regulatory policies. Demand will be reduced by state power.
Each of these factors, it can be argued, is not the result of public choice but elite manipulation. The whole “renewable energy” industry is vastly dependent on public funding in a way that oil and gas never were. The goal, as stated, is increasing social and economic control.
Given a choice, people might well wish to maintain energy supplies that they themselves can access and transport.
Will the “new” Peak Oil come to pass? Not so fast. People generally are exhibiting increasing impatience with such manipulations.
Conclusion: Years ago we asked, as we ask now, whether elite promotions would be more or less enforceable in the 21st century. If Rockefeller had not been able to enforce the lie that oil was a scarce commodity, the whole industry would have taken on a different and less profitable profile. But today the assertion of elite manipulations is becoming increasingly questionable as people become more politically active and less satisfied with their economic condition. Both investors and consumers must inevitably grapple with this emergent phenomenon.
48 Comments on "They’re Lying to You About Peak Oil, and Making a Fortune in the Process"
onlooker on Thu, 5th May 2016 6:40 pm
So they are lying to us about peak oil too channel us to Renewable energy so they can control us better. What a bunch of convoluted mismatched nonsense. The only thing being manipulated is malleable and ignorant minds. Global warming is real, peak oil is real. Renewable is NOT coming to save the day and the control of the elites over anything or anyone is fast disappearing. Sadly, the masses also are commensurately losing control.
Boat on Thu, 5th May 2016 6:55 pm
Peak oil will be determined by market growth from electric cars and nat gas heav. But like anything they won’t really take off until there is profit to be made. 2030? It’s possible.
makati1 on Thu, 5th May 2016 7:04 pm
Boat, what planet do you live on? Certainly NOT the one we call Earth. What electric cars? They are techie toys and not going to change anything. Ditto for NG that is going to die from over production.
2030? There will be no US by then. It is not going to make it to 2020 the way things are going now. Globalization is grinding to a halt. There goes all of the techie toys and energy trade. Not to mention capitalism and all of its greed.
The world, it is ah changing, and not for the better. You need to adjust your thinking to reality and start prepping if you want to see 2030. But then, dreams are difficult to wake up from.
makati1 on Thu, 5th May 2016 7:07 pm
Well said, onlooker. Well said.
GregT on Thu, 5th May 2016 7:11 pm
Peak conventional oil is already in the rearview mirror. The resulting global financial crisis will continue to unfold until economies of scale can no longer afford industrialism. In the meantime, climate change will continue to become more problematic for global food production and water security. People like Boat above will continue to ignore reality, and make up comforting little stories about a techno-utopian future, until the 2×4 of reality smacks them squarely between the eyes. By then it will be too late for them to take any meaningful action to ensure their own survivability. The opportunity will have been lost.
For profit capitalism has nearly run it’s course. What will be left in it’s wake, is a planet inhospitable to life as we currently know it, and a population of people totally dumbfounded as to how it ever could have happened. Human beings collectively, are not at all smart.
onlooker on Thu, 5th May 2016 7:53 pm
“For profit capitalism has nearly run it’s course. What will be left in it’s wake, is a planet inhospitable to life as we currently know it, and a population of people totally dumbfounded as to how it ever could have happened. Human beings collectively, are not at all smart” Well said Greg.
Boat on Thu, 5th May 2016 8:02 pm
Short did say by the end of 2019 oil infrastructure would be gathering dust/world collapse. 5 months have gone by.
DC was a frequent poster. Seemed like a guy. Like ape he had hundreds of links. They all showed the worlds imminent collapse. By 2016 the world was to have died and transformed into a mad max scenario. Well here we are and no collapse. Short is now on the clock. Anybody else want to date a collapse? How about support for short.
makati1 on Thu, 5th May 2016 8:12 pm
Boat, if you consider today’s world normal…
Harquebus on Thu, 5th May 2016 8:20 pm
Again, those that deny peak oil do not understand it. Those that advocate renewable energy are the liars.
“despite a string of optimistic choices resulting in low values of energy investments, the ERoEI is significantly below 1. In other words, an electrical supply system based on today’s PV technologies cannot be termed an energy source, but rather a non-sustainable energy sink or a non-sustainable NET ENERGY LOSS.”
https://collapseofindustrialcivilization.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/ferroni-y-hopkirk-2016-energy-return-on-energy-invested-eroei-for-photo.pdf
GregT on Thu, 5th May 2016 8:22 pm
Many places around the world are already well on the way to collapse Boat. Billions are already living in what you would consider to be a Mad Max scenario. Millions in the US are already living far below the poverty line, and those numbers will continue to grow. Collapse is a process, not a moment in time. Keep playing your childish little games, and eventually it is going to bite you in the ass. Big time.
ghung on Thu, 5th May 2016 9:05 pm
There’s so much shit-talking in this thread, I’ll pass.
As for Harquebus’ claim/link, our oldest panels have been in constant use since Dec. 1994, and have been pumping several hundred gallons of water most days over 100 feet in elevation for the last 10 years. I’m pretty sure they paid off their energy debt long ago. Last year they tested at full rated output and they are still going strong, so anyone that claims they haven’t, or never will, pay off their embodied energy doesn’t know what the fuck they’re talking about. Even I don’t know how much energy they have, and will, produce. Except for an occasional wash-down, ZERO MAINTENANCE. What other energy investments can make that claim.
Boat on Thu, 5th May 2016 9:19 pm
If one likes to google you can find erio for wind at 18.1. Payback can be 5-8 years with a 20 year life span.
ghung on Thu, 5th May 2016 9:42 pm
“CONCLUSION-
An update is given on energy pay-back times, greenhouse gas emissions and external costs of PV technology,
based on up-to-date data from real production processes. For average South European solar irradiation (1700 kWh/m2-yr) the energy pay-back time for complete installed PV systems range from 1 years to 2-7 years.“….
http://www.clca.columbia.edu/papers/Photovoltaic_Energy_Payback_Times.pdf
More:
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti35489.pdf
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/17219
http://www.azom.com/Details.asp?ArticleID=1119
http://www.ecotopia.com/apollo2/knapp/PVEPBTPaper.pdf
Boat on Thu, 5th May 2016 9:47 pm
gregt,
watch this
https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen?language=en
Boat on Thu, 5th May 2016 10:18 pm
ghung,
Another renewable opponent that will not read your links and continue to spew disinformation. Welcome to my world.
ghung on Thu, 5th May 2016 10:31 pm
Meh… He posts a study of PV energy payback for Northern Europe. I’m pretty sure if you put a hydro plant where there isn’t a lot of water, or a wind generator where there isn’t much wind, the energy payback would suck as well.
dave thompson on Thu, 5th May 2016 10:46 pm
Spend time with family and friends, SHUT IT DOWN!
GregT on Thu, 5th May 2016 10:51 pm
@Boat,
I watched that TED talk for the first time 10 years ago.
GregT on Thu, 5th May 2016 11:26 pm
Another renewable opponent that will not read your links and continue to spew disinformation. Welcome to my world.
There is no such thing as renewable electric power generation Boat. All alternate electric power generation requires finite resources in resource extraction, manufacturing, distribution, maintenance, and repairs. They all also require fossil fuels.
Alternate electric power generation is obviously much better than the direct burning of fossil fuels, but in no way does it stop the accumulation of CO2 into the environment, in no way is it the answer to Climate Change, and in no way is it renewable.
makati1 on Fri, 6th May 2016 12:11 am
Ghung, as you know, some wind farms in the UK are losing so much money the government is thinking of shutting them down and dismantling them. That is not the only place where ‘renewables’ are not proving profitable, and we all know the world runs on profits.
Boat on Fri, 6th May 2016 12:32 am
gregt,
That is your spin. I will continue to use the term renewable. The name renewable was not intended to showcase the energy used for the varied parts of construction.
Now you know.
Another tid bit. GDP was started after the depression to help measure economic activity.
It was never intended to measure happiness, poverty, health, food distribution etc. Now you know.
tita on Fri, 6th May 2016 2:45 am
This article is full of shit. The author doesn’t understand that energy have always been a matter of governement policy. Denmark was never forced to go for wind. But reducing the imports of FF by increasing wind generators for it’s electricity needs improved his commercial balance. The same could be said for Texas. Less FF used for electricity is more FF to be sold outside. Basic market choices.
Davy on Fri, 6th May 2016 4:59 am
This should not be an either or conversation. We are going to be faced with what we have is all we have soon. We are going to get to the point where we are not able to build out anything new for more than one reason. We are going to have a supply/demand destructive process that will eventually lead to supply/demand destructive event IOW a depression or a collapse crisis. This is coming down the pike. Globalism will decline and in many cases cease to be globalism and gone will be global industries as we know them know with global finance, global economies of scale, and quick distribution. It will mean economic abandonment and the end of many investments.
We are likely heading for a period of a vortex of stagnation and decay with negative feedbacks and converging decline/decay systematic process. During this period of depressive stagnation and deflationary and destructive supply/demand relationships the capacity we have will become overcapacity. Some of it will be shut down for economic reasons. Some of it may be fired back up for economic reasons. An example would be a coal fired plant located in an area that has seen another power source go off line. What we are likely not going to see is a new wind or solar farm. We will likely see salvage of existing wind and solar farms that can be parted out and moved to areas of need. We will likely not see new gas generation as supply likely falls off a cliff.
We will take what we have and make it work. We can call this the salvage period and it will involve abandonment and cannibalization but also salvage of whatever works and whatever is available. This will be a period of rapid reorganization around a declining infrastructure both physical and abstract. The abstract would be networks and systems. People are resourceful and innovative. We have a very educated population and currently a huge knowledge base to draw from. We have a huge amount of things to utilize from a period of peak everything. At least initially before the physical and abstract entropic decay sets in these resources and assets will be utilized. As time goes by education and knowledge will decline and destruct. Equipment will wear out and new sources will be reduced.
The degree and duration of this type of power down is unclear but the trend is clear. The trend is not our friend. I say this with a caveat on one level and that is some of us will find this new period stimulating and energizing. We will be back to a period of physical efforts for survival. Gone will be the doldrums of modern life where we are put in solitary confinement of affluence where even the poor live like nobles of the dark ages and the rich like Pharos. This solitary confinement of affluence with ill physical health and latent mental illness. We are a society of insanity with a narrative of exceptionalism as we speed into a bottleneck.
Modern life has a degree of insanity to it. It is in a way a mechanization. We are an extension of our productive processes just like the animals and plants we harvest in our industrial agriculture. We have become mechanized and reduced to cogs in a wheel in our global production engine. We are force fed life because death is expensive for society. We are force fed our wants and needs to satisfy our master the engine of growth. In that sense this power down has an aspect of liberation. That was a mental diversion but one that needs mentioning because not all will be bad about this period of destructive change.
It is my hope that solar, wind, and battery storage increases to fill applicable niches in this period of decline. I am a farmer and I can see the importance of having solar running pumps, lights, and small power tools. I have pasture fence that is high tensile electric for my cattle and goats. I have a backup solar system. I may need that as my primary source eventually. If you are an emergency responder you can see valuable uses of alternative energy.
This is the place alternative energy will shine and that is niches off the grid for when the grid destabilizes. The list are large of needs what is a pity is we are not investing these technologies in these needed applications like we should. Alternative energy assets are not a transition energy paradigm but they are a vital inclusion into what will help us through a crisis period of destructive change. This period may be a quick collapse but how can we know that. We must plan for and focus on a period of slower decline that is survivable and maybe we will be lucky. It will be luck to avoid a quick collapse the way society is in denial.
rockman on Fri, 6th May 2016 6:50 am
tita – And that’s exactly why there was never much talking down of wind power by the fossil fuel industry in Texas. In fact the electricity utilities were desperate for wind development here in order to keep up with our growing demand.
ghung on Fri, 6th May 2016 7:31 am
I was responding to the claim that PV never pays back it’s embodied energy. That claim was clearly false. As always, the strawmen came out and changed that sub-topic, insisting on making the perfect the enemy of the better. But, OK, I’ll also point out that the PV panels I referred to in my OP, above, have been producing power for over 21 years without producing one single gram of CO2 since they were installed.
shortonoil on Fri, 6th May 2016 7:43 am
“Short did say by the end of 2019 oil infrastructure would be gathering dust/world collapse. 5 months have gone by.”
Our projection for the end of the oil age is, and always has been 2030. The point when the average barrel will have reached the “dead state”. The point where the average barrel can no longer deliver energy to the economy. The point where it is theoretically impossible for producers using the present process to make money producing oil.
Which orifice did you pull 2019 out of – bet it was the same one you use day after day to post here!
http://www.thehillsgroup.org/
Davy on Fri, 6th May 2016 7:59 am
It is the approach to the dead state of oil that all the fun will start not the holiday. Boat, don’t get cocky 3 years is a long time when S(starts)HTF.
Boat on Fri, 6th May 2016 9:04 am
Davy,
” We must plan for and focus on a period of slower decline that is survivable and maybe we will be lucky. It will be luck to avoid a quick collapse the way society is in denial.”
I am glad you have softened your stance a bit. As climate change increases cost humans will adjust. Houston for example may move away from the coast and build infrastructer for flooding but unlikely to abandon the port. Plenty of room with higher land to the north for business and housing.
GregT on Fri, 6th May 2016 10:05 am
Boat,
You can call something anything that you like, if it makes you feel more comfortable. Nothing more than pure ignorance and denial.
The facts remain. GDP is not a true indicator of economic, or societal well being, alternate forms of electric power generation are not renewable without fossil fuels, and a runaway greenhouse event will in all likelihood not be survivable for the human race, or the vast majority of all life on this planet. Ignorance may be bliss, but in no way does it reflect the reality of our situation.
onlooker on Fri, 6th May 2016 10:13 am
And I would add Boat, ignorance is not bliss when having to fend off the consequences of that reality you thought you could blissfully ignore.
GregT on Fri, 6th May 2016 11:13 am
Ghung,
“I’ll also point out that the PV panels I referred to in my OP, above, have been producing power for over 21 years without producing one single gram of CO2 since they were installed.”
While your above statement is true, I would consider that to be somewhat misleading, wouldn’t you agree? Those panels would not be useful to you without the systems that they are connected to, and the gadgets that you run the electricity with. No?
Sorry to be a nitpick.
On another note, just a quick question. I’m looking for a 12V pump solution for a shallow well, for PV. I thought you might have some insight that could save me a bit of time sifting through all of the available info. My current pump draws around 5000 watts at start up @112 volts, and pumps into a 50 gallon pressure tank. The pump is not submerged. For the time being I’m more concerned with getting water to the house in the event of a power outage, and to maintain drip irrigation to my greenhouses and raised beds. Solar insolation is not the best here, especially during the winter months, and I’m not at the stage of installing a $25K off grid system, just quite yet.
Any info would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
dave thompson on Fri, 6th May 2016 11:29 am
When I hear people boast of the wonders of solar power and how they are paying back in energy production, I have to ask,How many inverters have you replaced? How many batteries have you replaced? How do the different replacement parts get delivered, manufactured and sold? On a small scale a solar system may make sense. At scale industrial civilization is not going to run without the energy density of FF inputs.
Boat on Fri, 6th May 2016 11:52 am
dave,
Who says the world will not have FF. When solar becomes more efficient Texas could use enough to at least take care of peak heat during the day.
I dont know the saturation of renewables. Every market is different. A logical goal is to reach that point if the energy is cheaper.
dave thompson on Fri, 6th May 2016 12:20 pm
I looked into a solar system w/battery storage and the batteries alone were $7,000.00-$12,000.00 depending on the capacity I would rely on. The sales person told me I could expect a four to seven year lifespan for the lead acid array. At those prices grid tied power is far and away cheaper.
Boat on Fri, 6th May 2016 12:56 pm
dave,
Look at the bigger picture. Let’s say google puts up a solar field near Phoenix Az big enough to power a data center. By building in great sun and having such a large array the project is financially feasible. They sell the electricity to a Phoenix utility. There data center may be be in Main where the sun is bad and wind worse. Even if the electricity in Main comes from coal they point to the solar in Phoenix as an energy offset. Large environmentally friendly companies do this.
PracticalMaina on Fri, 6th May 2016 12:59 pm
be be in Main? The power from Maine comes from hydro biomass and natgas primarily. Wind and solar do not suck in Maine, sooo yeah.
PracticalMaina on Fri, 6th May 2016 1:00 pm
Solar output is actually often times better in a cooler climate because of a decrease in efficiency loss at high temps. Maine gets much better light than Germany and look at their massive solar use.
Boat on Fri, 6th May 2016 1:02 pm
That was a hypothetical scenario idiot.
PracticalMaina on Fri, 6th May 2016 1:04 pm
You’ve been drinking too much water.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/energy-environment/the-latest-pesticides-petroleum-additives-found-in-runoff/2016/05/05/e85560c8-132a-11e6-a9b5-bf703a5a7191_story.html
Boat on Fri, 6th May 2016 1:09 pm
Monsanto came out with seed that requires less pesticide. Lol
GregT on Fri, 6th May 2016 6:37 pm
@Boat,
“Monsanto came out with seed that requires less pesticide. Lol”
And you wonder why people like myself call you a fucking moron. Get your head out of your asshole Boat, or go away.
peakyeast on Fri, 6th May 2016 6:38 pm
http://energyinformative.org/lifespan-solar-panels/
It makes some sense that solar panels mounted in cool environments (not frosty) will give output for a longer time since heat is major factor in degradation.
I have only had mine for 6 years – but I can see no measurable degradation so far when looking at annual production. However, Its possible that it has drowned in the variance of the solar input.
Boat on Fri, 6th May 2016 7:09 pm
greggiet,
Why does monsanto bother you?
GregT on Fri, 6th May 2016 8:09 pm
Kevi,
Why does Monsanto not bother you?
onlooker on Fri, 6th May 2016 8:13 pm
Boat, Monsanto record of pernicious products dates back to the Vietnam War with Agent Orange and goes forward to the present with the harmful pesticide Roundup. They are are dealer in poison. They should not be allowed near our food supply.
makati1 on Fri, 6th May 2016 8:18 pm
Me thinks Boat owns Monsanto stock. Otherwise, why defend a known killer of millions?
Boat on Fri, 6th May 2016 10:10 pm
In December 2010, the European Commission published a report summarizing the results of 50 research projects addressing the safety of GMOs for the environment as well as for animal and human health. These projects received funding of €200 million from the EU and are part of a 25-year long research effort on GMOs. In announcing the report, the Commission stated, “…there is, as of today, no scientific evidence associating GMOs with higher risks for the environment or for food and feed safety than conventional plants.”
In 2012, a literature review of well-designed, long-term and multigenerational animal feeding studies comparing GM and non-GM potatoes, soy, rice, corn and triticale found that GM crops and their non-GM counterparts are nutritionally equivalent and can be safely used in food and feed.
Price is a big one. A bag of genetically engineered corn seed can be significantly higher than the seed for a non-GMO variety. (Yes, despite what you may have heard, we always have a choice to purchase non-GMO seeds.) But the non-GMO variety is likely to have lower yields and may require more herbicide or pesticide applications throughout the growing season. The GMO varieties offer higher yields and less applications of herbicide in the fields, which translates to less fuel, less wear and tear on equipment, and less time.
Even the type of planter a farmer is using may influence the seed buying decision! For example, some planters work better with a specific type of seed, such as large round or small flat. Some planters are also equipped with the ability to apply insecticide through the planter, which will also influence whether or not a farmer buys seed treatments or what kind of seed.
As you may have figured out by now, choosing which seed a farmer is going to plant is not one that can be taken lightly. It takes planning. It requires a good understanding of how the various traits can influence a crop. It means a farmer needs to be familiar with his fields, the weather, and the soil. It’s no wonder we need crop consultants!
Each farm is unique. To find the right seed, it usually also takes a little bit of experimenting. Do one company’s seeds perform better than another company? Are there some traits that work better in one kind of field, while others maximize yields for a different field? Is there something about the growing season that’s different this year and needs to be accounted for?
It also probably takes a little bit of luck.
No matter what the situation, however, it starts with a choice. Farmers have a choice to grow genetically modified crops or not to grow them. Considering all of the other factors and considerations that weigh into the decision, it takes an understanding of how all these different dynamics work within each unique farm. The choice is about doing what is right and works best for each farmer.
While the process of choosing a seed may be ridiculously complicated, the reality is simple: farmers plant genetically modified crops because they want to plant genetically modified crops.
Boat on Fri, 6th May 2016 10:15 pm
The US is not China. Our farmers make the decision of what to plant. If you don’t like a product, vote with your wallet.