by mos6507 » Fri 17 Dec 2010, 10:28:48
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bratticus', '
')Peak oil escalating cycles of recession implicitly require periods of recovery.
The general thrust of peak-oil punditry in the runup of oil in 2008 was that we were headed for $200-300/bbl oil. This was spearheaded by people such as Matt Simmons, who was given mondo air-time on cable news to make bad calls almost as bad as what he said about the BP blowout.
Nobody factored in:
a) the housing crisis
b) commodity speculation
c) oil tanking due to speculators cashing out and the housing crisis temporarily killing demand
Just to remind you all what the general morale of peak-dom was in the fall of 2008, it was NOT self-congratulatory. It was one of state of shock. People here basically
wrote off peak-oil as a as a running concern with oil all the way down in the thirties and everybody consumed with the credit crisis instead. It was around that time that the posters here pivoted from peak oil to
politics, where it remains to this day. The Obama pseudo-scandal du-jour or the "TSA follies" is seen as more newsworthy than energy issues. To me, that says it all about the peak oil "doom-o-meter". We're still doomers, but are we really that concerned with imminent oil shocks? Not really, even with oil touching $90. There's more talk about the Fed than Ghawar.
It was Jeff Rubin who was bold enough to come forward and claim victory where none was justified, after which peakers had a talking point--a dubious one at best--but everybody ran with it and that's what leads us to today, in which peakers continue to drive home the false notion that "peak oil caused the credit crisis" as their only talking point. It doesn't sell with anyone but the peaker echo chamber.
So within a thread like this, I will be drowned out by those who have bought into this narrative so completely that they see nothing but the unshakable logic of correlation is causation.
(Remember, peaking of conventional crude in the past as the IEA reports is of no consequence if unconventional oil lives up to the hype. Do I believe it will? No. But the IEA certainly doesn't indicate that unconventional will falter anytime soon. And so the IEA can't really be used as a bellweather for peak oil doom. If anything, it backs up the notion that unconventional buys us plenty of transition-time.)
I read one news item recently that bashed Jeff Rubin for his tunnel vision on this very point. It's one thing to say high oil prices (regardless of their cause) were
a factor in the recession, but people like Jeff omit the credit crisis entirely from their narrative, only presenting the recession as "peak oil doom". To me, this is shoddy thinking of the highest order, which is why I continue to trot out my mascot to illustrate this point, the mighty Church lady from SNL who always blames everything on SATAN.

This form of connecting the dots is just as flawed as the lines on Glenn Beck's blackboard. Don't start selectively filtering the data to back up your belief system. Be willing to admit that the world has
more moving parts than just oil prices.