Peak Oil & Global Warming - Radio Debate
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 3:30 pm
- Location: Devon
- Contact:
Peak Oil: Myth or Reality?
Peak Oil Debate
I regret to say that I have no real intention of entering into a long drawn out debate with the anonymous James C. If he is not willing to take up The Watcher's incredibly generous offer and watch the DVD of my 'Peak Oil: Myth or Reality' presentation, I can only assume that his primary interest is wasting my time by attempting to engage me in a meaningless circular forum discussion.
The fact that James C perpetuates the myth that the US 'peaked' in oil production in the 1970's adequately demonstrates that he elects to ignore the carefully planned removal of the US$ from the Gold Standard (Aug 15th 1970), as the pre-cursor for the introduction of the Petro-dollar in 1973. I address the reasons for this and the Kissinger/Baker driven geo-fiscal manipulation in the DVD. Sheik Yamani (1970's Saudi Oil Minister) confirmed in his recently released biography, that it was Kissinger who told OPEC in 1973, that the US would support a 400% increase in the price of oil, in return for establishing the US$ as the global petro-currency.
As for claiming that oil reserves have increased by 500% in the past five years, I assume that James C is referring to my reference in the recent Glastonbury Radio debate, where I stated that, "...Oilfield stocks had increased by an average of 500% in the past five years ..."
This was actually a reference to the average increase in market capitalisation (Share price) of oilfield related companies over the past five years.
That said, I did talk about rapidly advancing reservoir management technologies as evidenced by Andrew Gould (CEO - Schlumberger) in his Feb 25th presentation at the Intelligent Energy conference, where he referenced an example in the North Sea, where 'From 2001 to 2006, recoverable reserves were doubled as the intelligent completions permitted increased sweep efficiency, created better reservoir drainage and reduced intervention costs.'
Gould went on to reference reserve increases of 28% in the Gulf of Mexico and enhanced production in Nigeria.
The full text of Andrew Gould's presentation can be read HERE
The doom mongers continually fail to acknowledge the phenomenal level of engineering expertise within the Oil & Gas Industry and as Gould points out in his presentation, the challenge is for universities to produce the next generation of petroleum engineers as the baby-boomer generation nears retirement age (often as early as 55).
Although no one inside the Oil Industry is likely to promote the Peak Oil myth, for fear of being accused of market manipulation, they are quite happy to reap the phenomenal rewards (Stock Options, etc) that go hand in hand with the public perception associated with apparent scarcity. Although some ex-oilfield personnel will spout the 'peak oil' myth, they conveniently forget to divulge their own financial interest in perpetuating the perception of (artifical) scarcity.
This is not a simplistic one-dimensional debate and cannot be properly addressed through the medium of a web forum. Neither do I expect anyone to take my views as definitive, which is why I encourage people to take responsibility for their views by researching the issues for themselves.
There is so much readily available information purporting to represent the 'truth', from both sides of this debate. Ultimately, it is up to each individual to research the case for themselves and to reach their own conclusion as to where the truth may reside.
As an aside, the current order backlog of Boeing 737's stands at 1,800. New aircraft terminals are being built to handle the forecast increase in air travellers. Also, outrageously, many long-haul flights are flown empty just so's the airline can protect their landing slots! Does this sound like an industry that believes we are about to reach 'Peak Oil'? It would be naive to believe that the aircraft industry does not employ economic and political strategists, whose role is to ensure the appropriate business direction and protect shareholder interest.
I haven't even touched on the Government necessity to maintain the high price of oil ... so that they can continue to fleece the motorist for almost 70p in tax on every litre purchased on the forecourt. If this source of tax revenue (£11bn) is diminished, how else do you think the UK Government is going to fund the rush to Totalitarianism?
finally, as I emphasised in the Glastonbury Radio debate, I am not defending the oil industry, neither am I an advocate of burning 90million barrels of oil each day. We need to move away from a hydro-carbon based economy because we fundamentally believe that it is the right thing to do, in our quest to achieve a natural balance with our planetary host.
...but who do you think owns all the patents for alternative technology?
Ian R. Crane
I regret to say that I have no real intention of entering into a long drawn out debate with the anonymous James C. If he is not willing to take up The Watcher's incredibly generous offer and watch the DVD of my 'Peak Oil: Myth or Reality' presentation, I can only assume that his primary interest is wasting my time by attempting to engage me in a meaningless circular forum discussion.
The fact that James C perpetuates the myth that the US 'peaked' in oil production in the 1970's adequately demonstrates that he elects to ignore the carefully planned removal of the US$ from the Gold Standard (Aug 15th 1970), as the pre-cursor for the introduction of the Petro-dollar in 1973. I address the reasons for this and the Kissinger/Baker driven geo-fiscal manipulation in the DVD. Sheik Yamani (1970's Saudi Oil Minister) confirmed in his recently released biography, that it was Kissinger who told OPEC in 1973, that the US would support a 400% increase in the price of oil, in return for establishing the US$ as the global petro-currency.
As for claiming that oil reserves have increased by 500% in the past five years, I assume that James C is referring to my reference in the recent Glastonbury Radio debate, where I stated that, "...Oilfield stocks had increased by an average of 500% in the past five years ..."
This was actually a reference to the average increase in market capitalisation (Share price) of oilfield related companies over the past five years.
That said, I did talk about rapidly advancing reservoir management technologies as evidenced by Andrew Gould (CEO - Schlumberger) in his Feb 25th presentation at the Intelligent Energy conference, where he referenced an example in the North Sea, where 'From 2001 to 2006, recoverable reserves were doubled as the intelligent completions permitted increased sweep efficiency, created better reservoir drainage and reduced intervention costs.'
Gould went on to reference reserve increases of 28% in the Gulf of Mexico and enhanced production in Nigeria.
The full text of Andrew Gould's presentation can be read HERE
The doom mongers continually fail to acknowledge the phenomenal level of engineering expertise within the Oil & Gas Industry and as Gould points out in his presentation, the challenge is for universities to produce the next generation of petroleum engineers as the baby-boomer generation nears retirement age (often as early as 55).
Although no one inside the Oil Industry is likely to promote the Peak Oil myth, for fear of being accused of market manipulation, they are quite happy to reap the phenomenal rewards (Stock Options, etc) that go hand in hand with the public perception associated with apparent scarcity. Although some ex-oilfield personnel will spout the 'peak oil' myth, they conveniently forget to divulge their own financial interest in perpetuating the perception of (artifical) scarcity.
This is not a simplistic one-dimensional debate and cannot be properly addressed through the medium of a web forum. Neither do I expect anyone to take my views as definitive, which is why I encourage people to take responsibility for their views by researching the issues for themselves.
There is so much readily available information purporting to represent the 'truth', from both sides of this debate. Ultimately, it is up to each individual to research the case for themselves and to reach their own conclusion as to where the truth may reside.
As an aside, the current order backlog of Boeing 737's stands at 1,800. New aircraft terminals are being built to handle the forecast increase in air travellers. Also, outrageously, many long-haul flights are flown empty just so's the airline can protect their landing slots! Does this sound like an industry that believes we are about to reach 'Peak Oil'? It would be naive to believe that the aircraft industry does not employ economic and political strategists, whose role is to ensure the appropriate business direction and protect shareholder interest.
I haven't even touched on the Government necessity to maintain the high price of oil ... so that they can continue to fleece the motorist for almost 70p in tax on every litre purchased on the forecourt. If this source of tax revenue (£11bn) is diminished, how else do you think the UK Government is going to fund the rush to Totalitarianism?
finally, as I emphasised in the Glastonbury Radio debate, I am not defending the oil industry, neither am I an advocate of burning 90million barrels of oil each day. We need to move away from a hydro-carbon based economy because we fundamentally believe that it is the right thing to do, in our quest to achieve a natural balance with our planetary host.
...but who do you think owns all the patents for alternative technology?
Ian R. Crane
Last edited by ianrcrane on Fri Mar 21, 2008 10:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
This is not what I asked and your feeble excuse proves that you know little about the subject.
As usual you have trotted out the same old info as you always have which when I get some time I will analyze in more depth. Mind you, do I need to say much more when Gould himself said this in his presentation....
Why is it Ian that when you start to trip over yourself you have to raise my anonymity as if that is an issue? Why not show your little band of followers that you can discuss the data with the best of us instead of hiding behind your own theories?
As usual you have trotted out the same old info as you always have which when I get some time I will analyze in more depth. Mind you, do I need to say much more when Gould himself said this in his presentation....
This after all, is what peak oil is about; not oil running out, but it becoming more expensive due to higher production costs and ever increasing demand.Ladies and gentlemen, I think we all know the age of easy oil is over and the way ahead will be
more complex and more costly as we add production to meet the growth in demand while
continuing to maintain the production we enjoy today.
Why is it Ian that when you start to trip over yourself you have to raise my anonymity as if that is an issue? Why not show your little band of followers that you can discuss the data with the best of us instead of hiding behind your own theories?
Cheney seeks Saudi oil increase
So the US is desperate for OPEC production to increase and for the oil price to fall. Why? Because it's hurting their bottom line big time and is not sustainable for them.
The US economy is in a bad way and it can't afford the energy it needs to continue hence the need to control the Middle East. But do the OPEC countries (and Russia) really care? Probably not since they control most of the world's supply (over 70%) - not the western oil companies like Shell, BP, Chevron and others. In fact, the Seven Sisters of old (now Shell, Chevron and BP) hold about 3% of the world's reserves and supply 10% of the market. The new Seven Sisters (inc Saudi Aramco, Gazprom, Iraq National Oil Company) are all state owned, none are easily influenced by the US and between them they hold more than 30% of global oil reserves and produce 30% of supply. (source).
So the US is desperate for OPEC production to increase and for the oil price to fall. Why? Because it's hurting their bottom line big time and is not sustainable for them.
The US economy is in a bad way and it can't afford the energy it needs to continue hence the need to control the Middle East. But do the OPEC countries (and Russia) really care? Probably not since they control most of the world's supply (over 70%) - not the western oil companies like Shell, BP, Chevron and others. In fact, the Seven Sisters of old (now Shell, Chevron and BP) hold about 3% of the world's reserves and supply 10% of the market. The new Seven Sisters (inc Saudi Aramco, Gazprom, Iraq National Oil Company) are all state owned, none are easily influenced by the US and between them they hold more than 30% of global oil reserves and produce 30% of supply. (source).
-
- Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 3:30 pm
- Location: Devon
- Contact:
Cheney perpetuates the Myth
Cheney seeks Saudi oil increase ... to perpetuate the myth!
SourceQatar's oil minister, Abdullah bin Hamad Al Attiyah, said the (OPEC) cartel was inclined to hold steady _ if only because the markets don't seem thirsty for more oil.
"We know our customers very well," he said. "We ask them very simple questions, like, 'Do you need more oil?' The answer is 'no.'"
Re: Cheney perpetuates the Myth
So, basically, you choose to ignore the data in preference for twisting news events to justify your absurd theory. But anyone can do that. There is nothing special in promoting conspiracy theories based upon one's own ideas about how the world is working but it does help to look at the information across the whole spectrum if the theory is to work successfully. I mean, is OPEC deliberately holding back on production or is it the case that in reality it just can't raise output? And to pretend that the US didn't peak in output in 1970 is plain absurd. Could you please show me where the figures are being manipulated and how Hubbert got it wrong .ianrcrane wrote:Cheney seeks Saudi oil increase ... to perpetuate the myth!
SourceQatar's oil minister, Abdullah bin Hamad Al Attiyah, said the (OPEC) cartel was inclined to hold steady _ if only because the markets don't seem thirsty for more oil.
"We know our customers very well," he said. "We ask them very simple questions, like, 'Do you need more oil?' The answer is 'no.'"
And Ian, what did you make of Gould's comment about the end of easy oil or will you now pretend he actually meant the opposite to what he said to increase the peak oil charade? You have to wonder why America's SPR is now at its highest level ever when peak oil is a myth as you claim, (source). No doubt you'll attempt to suggest that this is where the excess oil is being pumped to create tightness in supply. Of course the history books will tell you the SPR was created in the mid-70's to mitigate the problems experienced during the 1973 oil embargo but if you are to be believed then this must be wrong also.
-
- Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 3:30 pm
- Location: Devon
- Contact:
Kissinger's Oil Politics
Kissinger responsible for 400% oil price increase in 1970's
A significant chunk of the 1100% increase in oil prices over the past nine years, is attributable to US manipulation ... just as it was in the 1970's. Although I sense the guiding hand of Kissinger (a being who makes Machiavelli seem transparent), the main drivers on this occasion are Dick Cheney, James A. Baker, Matthew Simmonds, John Deutch & John Schlesinger.
Ken Lay (ex-Chairman ENRON) would have been amongst this select group but he got busted by the greed of CEO Jeff Skilling and CFO Andrew Fastow.
With his mid-90's global extrapolation of Hubbert's Curve, Colin Campbell simply provided the medium with which this cabal could create the perception of (artificial) scarcity.
Ian R. Crane
An extract from an article which appeared in The Guardian on 14th January 2001
Sheik Ahmed Zaki Yamani's voice quickens further when he reminisces about the era of great oil diplomacy in the Seventies and his contemporary, former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.
At this point he makes an extraordinary claim: 'I am 100 per cent sure that the Americans were behind the increase in the price of oil. The oil companies were in in real trouble at that time, they had borrowed a lot of money and they needed a high oil price to save them.'
He says he was convinced of this by the attitude of the Shah of Iran, who in one crucial day in 1974 moved from the Saudi view, that a hike would be dangerous to Opec because it would alienate the US, to advocating higher prices.
'King Faisal sent me to the Shah of Iran, who said: "Why are you against the increase in the price of oil? That is what they want? Ask Henry Kissinger - he is the one who wants a higher price".'
Yamani contends that proof of his long-held belief has recently emerged in the minutes of a secret meeting on a Swedish island, where UK and US officials determined to orchestrate a 400 per cent increase in the oil price.
These extraordinary insights come as US/Opec relations once again return to the spotlight: President-elect George W Bush last week warned Opec of the implications of a price hike.
When asked whether oil had proved to be a blessing or a curse for oil-producing countries, the Sheikh smiled enigmatically: 'I am worried about the future. If you get money so easily, you relax and you lose your muscles.'
He believes that the oil age will end not for lack of oil, but because of technology. His concern for the long-term economic prospects of his people is clear.
For him, that cut on Wednesday may be the first step in the wrong direction.
Fast facts
'Yamani or your life,' cried one headline during the oil crises of the Seventies. That reflected Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani's role as the public face of the Opec oil-producer's cartel.
Yamani was Saudi Oil Minister from 1962 to 1986. During that time he escaped the assassin who killed King Faisal, and survived kidnapping by Carlos 'The Jackal'.
He now chairs the respected Centre for Global Energy Studies, famous for its exhaustive knowledge of world trends. He also runs the Al-Furqan Islamic Heritage Centre in south London.
Last year Yamani said that the oil prices were destined to crash in the long term and, the world would never use up the last drop of oil, because it would not need to: 'The Stone Age did not come to an end because we had a lack of stones, and the oil age will not come to an end because we have a lack of oil.'
Source
A significant chunk of the 1100% increase in oil prices over the past nine years, is attributable to US manipulation ... just as it was in the 1970's. Although I sense the guiding hand of Kissinger (a being who makes Machiavelli seem transparent), the main drivers on this occasion are Dick Cheney, James A. Baker, Matthew Simmonds, John Deutch & John Schlesinger.
Ken Lay (ex-Chairman ENRON) would have been amongst this select group but he got busted by the greed of CEO Jeff Skilling and CFO Andrew Fastow.
With his mid-90's global extrapolation of Hubbert's Curve, Colin Campbell simply provided the medium with which this cabal could create the perception of (artificial) scarcity.
Ian R. Crane
Ian, why do you concentrate so much on what happened in the 1970's as justification for your belief? Sure Kissinger was eager to hike up the price of oil since the US was the lead producer of oil at that time. But the US had also peaked in supply and Kissinger was well aware that then was the time to maximize revenue before output really started to fall. Besides, the Vietnam war was hurting the US economy and they needed some extra cash and fast. But Kissinger also used the price hike as leverage to get OPEC to accept the petro-dollar. OPEC did in fact want to hike the price even further but Yamani said it would hurt the US economy too much and so settled on the 400% increase we know happened.
But that article was written in 2001 and Yamani has been proved wrong about the long term price of oil which he stated would fall. You also fail to extract that part of the article where he discusses how high prices are very damaging to corporate America especially as the US imports about 14 million bpd and yet produces only 6-7 million. Why would Cheney want high prices now? That doesn't make any sense at all so let's look at the world in today's market shall we and ignore what Kissinger orchestrated in the 70's.
Since you are using a former Saudi oil man to back up your claims, here's an equally important one discussing how peak oil is pretty much here.
Sadad al-Huseini - ex-head of exploration and production for Saudi Aramco
But that article was written in 2001 and Yamani has been proved wrong about the long term price of oil which he stated would fall. You also fail to extract that part of the article where he discusses how high prices are very damaging to corporate America especially as the US imports about 14 million bpd and yet produces only 6-7 million. Why would Cheney want high prices now? That doesn't make any sense at all so let's look at the world in today's market shall we and ignore what Kissinger orchestrated in the 70's.
Since you are using a former Saudi oil man to back up your claims, here's an equally important one discussing how peak oil is pretty much here.
Sadad al-Huseini - ex-head of exploration and production for Saudi Aramco
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/s ... 57&k=38324
400 billion barrels should last us a while!!Massive reserves at stake in Arctic oil claim
U.S. company projects 400 billion barrels
Randy Boswell, Canwest News Service, Published: Friday, March 21
A U.S.-based company that has controversially laid claim to nearly all of the Arctic Ocean's undersea oil said Thursday that new geological data suggests a "potentially vast" petroleum resource of 400 billion barrels.
That figure is backed by a respected Canadian researcher who recently signed on as the firm's chief scientific adviser.
Las Vegas-based Arctic Oil & Gas has raised eyebrows around the world with its roll-of-the-dice bid to lock up exclusive rights to extract oil and gas from rapidly melting areas of the central Arctic Ocean, currently beyond the territorial control of Canada, Russia and other polar nations.
A satellite photo shows an ice-free North-west Passage. Warming has created a scramble for the region's resources.
Reuters, NASA handout
The company, which counts retired B.C. senator Edward Lawson among its directors, has filed a claim with the United Nations to act as the sole "development agent" of Arctic seabed oil and gas.
The firm acknowledges that the Arctic's petroleum deposits are the "common heritage of mankind," but has argued that the polar region requires a private "lead manager" to organize a multinational consortium of oil companies to extract undersea resources responsibly and equitably.
The Canadian government has dismissed the company's "alleged claim" over Arctic oil as having "no force in law," but experts in polar issues have raised alarms about the firm's actions, saying they could disrupt efforts to create an orderly regime for exploiting resources and protecting the Arctic environment under international law, rather than a marketplace model.
In its latest statement about the polar seabed's "enormous reserve potential" for petroleum deposits, Arctic Oil & Gas cites recent scientific evidence that huge, floating mats of azolla -- a prehistoric fern believed to have covered much of the Arctic Ocean during a planetary hothouse era about 55 million years ago -- decomposed soon after the age of the dinosaurs and exist today as "vast hydrocarbon resources" trapped in layers of rock below the polar ice cap.
Bujak, a former geoscientist with the Geological Survey of Canada who now works as a private consultant in Canada and the U.K., is described in the Arctic Oil & Gas statement as confirming the "highly probable validity" of recent research pointing to rock layers "extremely rich" in "hydrocarbon precursors" throughout the Arctic basin.
Bujak, who previously worked for Petro-Canada as a petroleum geologist, co-authored a landmark 2006 study in the journal Nature that first detailed the ancient azolla explosion that shows up today in Arctic seabed core samples.
Neither Bujak nor Lawson could be reached for comment on Thursday.
Scientists have predicted that global warming could leave the entire Arctic virtually ice-free for months at a time within 20 years. That prospect has hastened a scramble among nations with a polar coast, including Canada, to try to strengthen their scientific claims under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea to extended territorial sovereignty over the Arctic Ocean floor.
© The Edmonton Journal 2008
"The conflict between corporations and activists is that of narcolepsy versus remembrance. The corporations have money, power and influence. Our sole influence is public outrage. Extract from "Cloud Atlas (page 125) by David Mitchell.
- John White
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3185
- Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 6:25 am
- Location: Here to help!
BUT will we last long enough to use it?400 billion barrels should last us a while!!
Las Vegas-based Arctic Oil & Gas has raised eyebrows around the world with its roll-of-the-dice bid to lock up exclusive rights to extract oil and gas from rapidly melting areas of the central Arctic Ocean, currently beyond the territorial control of Canada, Russia and other polar nations.
Can you see the deep irony here?
A find this large might by us maybe three decades (at most) but is also akin to a crack cocaine user ravaging his body ever faster to keep up with his hit
Free your Self and Free the World
Yes it should but first it needs to be proven which may or may not happen. Only then will the time, effort and money be put in to extracting it which should see the oil flowing in about 5 years or so. By which time, existing oil fields globally will be further depleted by a few tens of billions. You also have to factor in that there is always a maximum rate at which any oil field can be extracted, usually a few million barrels per day at most, which means you can't get the oil out of the ground as fast as the world demands it. This is the significance of peak oil - it's not about oil running out (although of course by definition we are) but a problem of output.blackcat wrote:
400 billion barrels should last us a while!!
Of course, you have to wonder why the oil companies are so desperate to drill for oil in the most hostile of places (and mine the tar sands) if there isn't a problem. Oil companies always go for the easy (cheap to produce - good for profits) oil first and this ain't easy.
-
- On Gardening Leave
- Posts: 4513
- Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 7:41 pm
gruts wrote:different rates of tax?So, why the disparity in pump prices ?
Source: APIThe American Petroleum Institute wrote:As of January 9, 2008, the average amount of tax imposed on a gallon of gasoline sold in the United States was 47.0 cents per gallon.
That's about 12 cents of tax per Litre in the USA.
Taking my quoted average price for US gas at $3.20, that leaves about $3.18 for the fuel per US gallon, or about 84 cents per litre.
For UK unleaded petrol, Petrol Prices quote an October 2007 figure of 53.65 pence per litre.
Even if we take a nominal 100 pence per litre as an average price of October 2007, that leaves about 46 pence per litre for the fuel.
Which, at current exchange rates is about the same as the price per litre in the US.
Our total fuel taxes are, more than twice those applied in the USA.
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.
Cheap fuel - expensive healthcare as opposed to the UK where fuel is costly but health treatment is FREE. Can't have it all ways I guess.Mark Gobell wrote:gruts wrote:different rates of tax?So, why the disparity in pump prices ?Source: APIThe American Petroleum Institute wrote:As of January 9, 2008, the average amount of tax imposed on a gallon of gasoline sold in the United States was 47.0 cents per gallon.
That's about 12 cents of tax per Litre in the USA.
Taking my quoted average price for US gas at $3.20, that leaves about $3.18 for the fuel per US gallon, or about 84 cents per litre.
For UK unleaded petrol, Petrol Prices quote an October 2007 figure of 53.65 pence per litre.
Even if we take a nominal 100 pence per litre as an average price of October 2007, that leaves about 46 pence per litre for the fuel.
Which, at current exchange rates is about the same as the price per litre in the US.
Our total fuel taxes are, more than twice those applied in the USA.
In fact, looking at the US tax system on fuel proves that the oil companies really aren't as greedy as is made out. After all, the most oil consuming nation on the planet is taxed hardly at all. One would have thought the neo-cons would have done something about this by now.
-
- On Gardening Leave
- Posts: 4513
- Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 7:41 pm
As I twaddled off to reflect on my earlier post and my subseqent enlightenment, (thanks Gruts) , I thought, well the NHS has to be funded somehow I suppose. . .
Days earlier, I watched a History Channel prog on the immediate aftermath of WW2, when, amidst the backdrop of military ships and suggested thoughts of fragile imperialism and failing oil wells, the narrator said in 1945:
it is estimated that the America's oil reserves will dry up in only 10 years . . .
Days earlier, I watched a History Channel prog on the immediate aftermath of WW2, when, amidst the backdrop of military ships and suggested thoughts of fragile imperialism and failing oil wells, the narrator said in 1945:
it is estimated that the America's oil reserves will dry up in only 10 years . . .
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.
Here's a question for Ian.
If peak oil is a myth, as you assert, then I am intrigued to know why you are selling the film Oil, Smoke & Mirrors on your website? Not only is this film freely available on Google but its central message is that peak oil was the main reason behind the false flag actions on 9/11.
I assume this isn't just for profit?
If peak oil is a myth, as you assert, then I am intrigued to know why you are selling the film Oil, Smoke & Mirrors on your website? Not only is this film freely available on Google but its central message is that peak oil was the main reason behind the false flag actions on 9/11.
I assume this isn't just for profit?
-
- Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 3:30 pm
- Location: Devon
- Contact:
Peak Oil: Myth or Reality?
James C asked:
During the discussion, I suggest specifically that the works of Mike Ruppert and Richard Heinberg (for example) are integral to understanding the case for 'Peak Oil'.
Of course, I also suggest that people google:
peak oil scam
peak oil myth
peak oil deception
The 'Truth' can only be realised through the effort to pursue the quest for knowledge.
Hey James, why not come along to The Alternative View event in Totnes at the end of the month and hear/see a range of speakers produce their evidence to support their case that Anthropogenic Climate Change & Peak Oil are geo-politico-economic constructs?
Of course, in reality ... only time will reveal who has any kind of handle on the real 'Truth'.
Ian R. Crane
If you listen to the recent Glastonbury Radio debate between Rob Hopkins (Transition Town... and Chatham House/Common Purpose perhaps?) and myself, you would hear that I actively encourage people to review both sides of the case.If peak oil is a myth, as you assert, then I am intrigued to know why you are selling the film Oil, Smoke & Mirrors on your website? Not only is this film freely available on Google but its central message is that peak oil was the main reason behind the false flag actions on 9/11.
During the discussion, I suggest specifically that the works of Mike Ruppert and Richard Heinberg (for example) are integral to understanding the case for 'Peak Oil'.
Of course, I also suggest that people google:
peak oil scam
peak oil myth
peak oil deception
The 'Truth' can only be realised through the effort to pursue the quest for knowledge.
Hey James, why not come along to The Alternative View event in Totnes at the end of the month and hear/see a range of speakers produce their evidence to support their case that Anthropogenic Climate Change & Peak Oil are geo-politico-economic constructs?
Of course, in reality ... only time will reveal who has any kind of handle on the real 'Truth'.
Ian R. Crane
Re: Peak Oil: Myth or Reality?
Hi Ian,ianrcrane wrote:James C asked:If you listen to the recent Glastonbury Radio debate between Rob Hopkins (Transition Town... and Chatham House/Common Purpose perhaps?) and myself, you would hear that I actively encourage people to review both sides of the case.If peak oil is a myth, as you assert, then I am intrigued to know why you are selling the film Oil, Smoke & Mirrors on your website? Not only is this film freely available on Google but its central message is that peak oil was the main reason behind the false flag actions on 9/11.
During the discussion, I suggest specifically that the works of Mike Ruppert and Richard Heinberg (for example) are integral to understanding the case for 'Peak Oil'.
Of course, I also suggest that people google:
peak oil scam
peak oil myth
peak oil deception
The 'Truth' can only be realised through the effort to pursue the quest for knowledge.
Hey James, why not come along to The Alternative View event in Totnes at the end of the month and hear/see a range of speakers produce their evidence to support their case that Anthropogenic Climate Change & Peak Oil are geo-politico-economic constructs?
Of course, in reality ... only time will reveal who has any kind of handle on the real 'Truth'.
Ian R. Crane
Thanks for your reply.
BTW, the link you have given doesn't work so for anyone reading this and is interested then here it is.
The Alternative View
I'm sure I would learn plenty by attending this event myself but I don't have the time to go so will have to miss it. As far as peak oil is concerned, I don't share your view, even if I accept the world (and the people who run it) is not as it seems. I have read just about everything going on the subject including what the critics have to say and I've come to the conclusion that the critics just don't understand what peak oil actually is never mind anything else to do with it. Mind you, the general public also fails to appreciate its significance which is another reason why I view matters differently to you as it is obvious the peak oil propaganda machine is practically non-existent.
Anyway, good luck at the event.
Re: Peak Oil: Myth or Reality?
So who is paying for all the adverts, the conferences and the entire propaganda machine?James C wrote: The peak oil propaganda machine is practically non-existent.
Everyone knows you are funded by someone you just wont admit who.

Re: Peak Oil: Myth or Reality?
There was a news report today about an immigration scam whereby immigrants were being offered certificates to prove their competency in english for £900 instead of having to attend a period of study and sit exams. As usual, it highlights how people will make money out of any given situation and peak oil is no different. The problem with your accusation about such ad campaigns is that they are few and far between and are of practically no relevance to anyone.karlos wrote:So who is paying for all the adverts, the conferences and the entire propaganda machine?James C wrote: The peak oil propaganda machine is practically non-existent.
Everyone knows you are funded by someone you just wont admit who.
As for the conferences, they are paid for in exactly the same way as those Ian Crane talks at - by a paying audience. Then again, there are probably less peak oil related conferences per year than there are 9/11 marches across the UK. It's hardly big time.
Agreed
So who has something to gain from promoting the concept of peak oil.
Because somebody is paying for the adverts.
And dont forget as James Whale said on his radio show there is plenty of coal at least 300+ years worth. And as you know coal is a hydrocarbon which can easily be converted into petrol and diesel as they have done for decades in South Africa. So if you add undiscovered and unexplored and even known oilfield but undeveloped as in Somalia. And ytou add these to known coalfields and shale. You have maybe enough energy for at least 500 years.
that does not take into account energy conservation and efficiency. Nor does it consider alternatives like ethanol which are already proven and bio diesel. Hydrogen seperation.
So i most sincerely believe peak oil is a scam designed either to promote more taxation or more invasions of and occupations of innocent countries
So who has something to gain from promoting the concept of peak oil.
Because somebody is paying for the adverts.
And dont forget as James Whale said on his radio show there is plenty of coal at least 300+ years worth. And as you know coal is a hydrocarbon which can easily be converted into petrol and diesel as they have done for decades in South Africa. So if you add undiscovered and unexplored and even known oilfield but undeveloped as in Somalia. And ytou add these to known coalfields and shale. You have maybe enough energy for at least 500 years.
that does not take into account energy conservation and efficiency. Nor does it consider alternatives like ethanol which are already proven and bio diesel. Hydrogen seperation.
So i most sincerely believe peak oil is a scam designed either to promote more taxation or more invasions of and occupations of innocent countries

I'm not sure that Mr Whale is an energy expert. What does 300+ years worth actually mean - it will last this long if we burn one lump a day or 10 million tonnes a day? Even the best data (and that isn't great) suggests that coal, if consumed globally and if oil & gas were to run out tomorrow, will last no more than 100+ years but, just like oil and gas, coal production will peak long before it is fully depleted, as shown below, and this could be within 20 years. There is also the issue of global warming.karlos wrote:Agreed
So who has something to gain from promoting the concept of peak oil.
Because somebody is paying for the adverts.
And dont forget as James Whale said on his radio show there is plenty of coal at least 300+ years worth. And as you know coal is a hydrocarbon which can easily be converted into petrol and diesel as they have done for decades in South Africa. So if you add undiscovered and unexplored and even known oilfield but undeveloped as in Somalia. And ytou add these to known coalfields and shale. You have maybe enough energy for at least 500 years.
that does not take into account energy conservation and efficiency. Nor does it consider alternatives like ethanol which are already proven and bio diesel. Hydrogen seperation.
So i most sincerely believe peak oil is a scam designed either to promote more taxation or more invasions of and occupations of innocent countries

This graph is taken from this article which you may care to read.
Peak Coal - Coming Soon?
So, as we've discussed many times before, there is plenty of energy out there but the problem is with not how long it will last but the quantity and availability of it compared with yesteryear and compared with oil which is the most calorific and versatile energy source out there. This is what the peak of supply (of any fuel) is all about. Not the fuel running out but having less and less to go round to keep us warm, get us to work and maintain the economy. Which is why we are in Iraq and Africa and the US is protecting the Caspian basin with missile defence's, much to Putin's annoyance.
As many people are saying right now (including Ryanair CEO Michael O'Leary), we are fast approaching a perfect storm - the clash of financial breakdown with the increasing price of oil. This has been long predicted and looks to be coming true. We are now entering a depression which we may not recover from very quickly.
I'd also be careful about suggesting that Western governments are behind all of this since they actually take their cue from two sources - the EIA and the IEA. Both are independent advisors to the major oil consuming nations and both say that peak oil will not happen before 2030 (although they agree it will happen eventually). If you write to Malcolm Wicks (Minister for Energy) about peak oil, which I have and you may care to do as well to see if I'm right, he will dismiss the subject in his reply and tell you that the government is advised by the IEA and EIA that oil supply will meet demand for the next few decades. Which again is a sign that peak oil is not on the public agenda of our rulers who know full well that to talk of possible supply constraints would be bad for business and the economy. That's why our current airport expansion is such a farce and yet the government won't stop it. (You may care to note that Richard Branson believes that peak oil could happen within 6 years hence his move to fly planes on bio-diesel - article). Instead, the US and UK intend to grab the oil under the guise of democracy and terror control rather than admit to any problem and see it shared out between all nations over the conference table - which Michael Meacher discusses in the film Oil, Smoke and Mirrors. Ever heard a minister say that Iraq is all about oil? I haven't and definitely never has oil scarcity been mentioned.
Would you mind giving me some examples of the ads you refer to? I'd be particularly keen on seeing the ones which have been on the TV and in the major newspapers and magazines.
Further to Karlos's accusations about peak oil adverts. Shell has now funded a full page advert in Time and Fortune magazine about peak oil and climate change written by peak oiler, Jeremy Leggett.
Here's the ad here
This is further to Shell CEO Jeroen van der Veer saying last week that peak oil will happen within the next decade.
Here's the ad here
This is further to Shell CEO Jeroen van der Veer saying last week that peak oil will happen within the next decade.
Mind you, only two weeks before this statement, van der Veer was saying there was no problem with global supply.International Herald Tribune - 01/04/08
Royal Dutch Shell CEO Jeroen van der Veer said Tuesday he expected easy-to-produce oil and gas would likely peak in the next 10 years.
Van der Veer said while depletion of maturing conventional resources would certainly play a key role in peak production, lack of access to remaining large reserves, such as in Saudi Arabia, was also a central component in his forecast.
Remaining resources, such as gas trapped in difficult-to-tap reservoirs or oil sands and shales, will require increasingly costly investments per barrel to produce.
"It's becoming technologically expensive, capital intensive and lead times are growing longer," van der Veer said at an energy supply scenario seminar at the Center for Strategic International Studies.
Van der Veer said that while several countries would maintain large remaining conventional oil and gas reserves — such as Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Iran — they would likely constrain remaining supplies.
For other resources, such as in the Arctic, cost would restrict production growth.
The Guardian - 18/03/08
Shell's chief executive, whose annual salary, bonus and cash benefits rose to £3.2m last year from £2.5m in 2006, said yesterday there was no major problem with world oil supply and no particular reason why prices had hit an all-time peak. "From the physical point of view there is no high alarm," he said. "It's difficult to understand why the oil price is where it is. No tankers are waiting in the Middle East. There are no queues for the retail stations here."
Anyone aware that there is currently a global food crisis? Even Gordon Brown is voicing concerns now. Looks like high oil prices and biofuels are largely to blame.
World food balance tips toward crisis
What's behind the world food crisis?
These days you hear a lot about the world financial crisis. But there's another world crisis under way -- and it's hurting a lot more people.
I'm talking about the food crisis. Over the past few years, the prices of wheat, corn, rice and other basic foodstuffs have doubled or tripled, with much of the increase taking place just in the past few months. High food prices dismay even relatively well-off Americans, but they're truly devastating in poor countries, where food often accounts for more than half a family's spending.
There already have been food riots around the world. Food-supplying countries, from Ukraine to Argentina, have been limiting exports in an attempt to protect domestic consumers, leading to angry protests from farmers -- and making things even worse in countries that need to import food.
How did this happen? The answer is a combination of long-term trends, bad luck -- and bad policy.
Let's start with the things that aren't anyone's fault.
First, there's the march of the meat-eating Chinese -- that is, the growing number of people in emerging economies who are, for the first time, rich enough to start eating like Westerners. Since it takes about 700 calories' worth of animal feed to produce a 100-calorie piece of beef, this change in diet increases the overall demand for grains.
Second, there's the price of oil. Modern farming is highly energy-intensive: a lot of BTUs go into producing fertilizer, running tractors and, not least, transporting farm products to consumers. With oil persistently above $100 per barrel, energy costs have become a major factor driving up agricultural costs.
High oil prices, by the way, also have a lot to do with the growth of China and other emerging economies. Directly and indirectly, these rising economic powers are competing with the rest of us for scarce resources, including oil and farmland, driving up prices for raw materials of all sorts.
Third, there has been a run of bad weather in key growing areas. In particular, Australia, normally the world's second-largest wheat exporter, has been suffering from an epic drought.
OK, I said that these factors behind the food crisis aren't anyone's fault, but that's not quite true. The rise of China and other emerging economies is the main force driving oil prices, but the invasion of Iraq -- which proponents promised would lead to cheap oil -- also has reduced oil supplies below what they would have been otherwise.
And bad weather, especially the Australian drought, is probably related to climate change. So politicians and governments that have stood in the way of action on greenhouse gases bear some responsibility for food shortages.
Where the effects of bad policy are clearest, however, is in the rise of demon ethanol and other biofuels.
The subsidized conversion of crops into fuel was supposed to promote energy independence and help limit global warming. But this promise was, as Time magazine bluntly put it, a "scam."
This is especially true of corn ethanol: even on optimistic estimates, producing a gallon of ethanol from corn uses most of the energy the gallon contains. But it turns out that even seemingly "good" biofuel policies, like Brazil's use of ethanol from sugar cane, accelerate the pace of climate change by promoting deforestation.
And meanwhile, land used to grow biofuel feedstock is land not available to grow food, so subsidies to biofuels are a major factor in the food crisis. You might put it this way: People are starving in Africa so that American politicians can court votes in farm states.
Oh, and in case you're wondering: All the remaining presidential contenders are terrible on this issue.
One more thing: One reason the food crisis has gotten so severe, so fast, is that major players in the grain market grew complacent.
Governments and private grain dealers used to hold large inventories in normal times, just in case a bad harvest created a sudden shortage. Over the years, however, these precautionary inventories were allowed to shrink, mainly because everyone came to believe that countries suffering crop failures could always import the food they needed.
This left the world food balance highly vulnerable to a crisis affecting many countries at once -- in much the same way that the marketing of complex financial securities, which was supposed to diversify away risk, left world financial markets highly vulnerable to a systemwide shock.
What should be done? The most immediate need is more aid to people in distress: the United Nations' World Food Program put out a desperate appeal for more funds.
We also need a pushback against biofuels, which turn out to have been a terrible mistake.
But it's not clear how much can be done. Cheap food, like cheap oil, may be a thing of the past.
Paul Krugman is a columnist for The New York Times. Copyright 2008 New York Times News Service.
All commodity prices have gone up.
Gold from $300 to $900 an ounce
Wheat, coffee, sugar, and crude oil.
Rhodium for example has gone from an average annual price of $862 in 1999 to over $9000 an ounce today.
All of these prices are going up so its a bull market for commodities.
Part of this has been due to the dollar collapse as most prices are in dollars.
But to say there is a shortage of food is wrong.
In the west there is an obesity epidemic so clearly we have too much food. We waste too much as well. The EUSSR has food mountains which it stockpiles to avoid the price collapsing.
It has been widely and wrongly claimed that food shortages are due to switching of land from food production to bio diesel and ethanol production.
This is horse manure.
What percentage of the world's arable land has been switched and where is all this bio fuel i certainly have not seen any and the UK government in fact prosecutes people who try and use it. (for the tax ofcourse).
There is no food shortage, this is a drama cooked up by those NWO advocates who want to see eugenics and population controls.
By blaming non existent bio fuelsthe NWO simply shifts our attention WRONGLY.
ps:
The EUSSR actually pays farmers to take land out of production and keep it fallow.
I suppose this video shows they will start taxing air soon as well?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmqpGZv0YT4[/youtube]
Gold from $300 to $900 an ounce
Wheat, coffee, sugar, and crude oil.
Rhodium for example has gone from an average annual price of $862 in 1999 to over $9000 an ounce today.
All of these prices are going up so its a bull market for commodities.
Part of this has been due to the dollar collapse as most prices are in dollars.
But to say there is a shortage of food is wrong.
In the west there is an obesity epidemic so clearly we have too much food. We waste too much as well. The EUSSR has food mountains which it stockpiles to avoid the price collapsing.
It has been widely and wrongly claimed that food shortages are due to switching of land from food production to bio diesel and ethanol production.
This is horse manure.
What percentage of the world's arable land has been switched and where is all this bio fuel i certainly have not seen any and the UK government in fact prosecutes people who try and use it. (for the tax ofcourse).
There is no food shortage, this is a drama cooked up by those NWO advocates who want to see eugenics and population controls.
By blaming non existent bio fuelsthe NWO simply shifts our attention WRONGLY.
ps:
The EUSSR actually pays farmers to take land out of production and keep it fallow.
I suppose this video shows they will start taxing air soon as well?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmqpGZv0YT4[/youtube]

The food crisis is affecting third world countries at the moment as the article clearly states. But it is being caused by the greed and lifestyles of the richer countries including our demand for biofuels. You may care to read this article.karlos wrote:But to say there is a shortage of food is wrong.
In the west there is an obesity epidemic so clearly we have too much food. We waste too much as well. The EUSSR has food mountains which it stockpiles to avoid the price collapsing.
Any proof to back this statement? Have you read what energy expert and Neo-con critic Robert Bryce has to say about ethanol production?karlos wrote:It has been widely and wrongly claimed that food shortages are due to switching of land from food production to bio diesel and ethanol production.
This is horse manure.
Last September, Lester Brown, the president of the Earth Policy Institute (a group that promotes "an environmentally sustainable economy") wrote in a Washington Post opinion piece that the amount of grain needed to make enough ethanol to fill a 25-gallon SUV tank "would feed one person for a full year. If the United States converted its entire grain harvest into ethanol, it would satisfy less than 16 percent of its automotive needs." Brown said the ongoing ethanol boom in the U.S. was "setting the stage for an epic competition. In a narrow sense, it is one between the world's supermarkets and its service stations." More broadly, "it is a battle between the world's 800 million automobile owners, who want to maintain their mobility, and the world's 2 billion poorest people, who simply want to survive."
Wrong! Many farmers grow biofuel crops in the UK. It is an enormous growth sector in the agricultural world. Ever heard of oilseed rape? Fields of yellow as far as the eye can see. My house is currently surrounded by the stuff. You can also make and use up to 2500 litres of your own bio-diesel without paying tax.karlos wrote: What percentage of the world's arable land has been switched and where is all this bio fuel i certainly have not seen any and the UK government in fact prosecutes people who try and use it. (for the tax ofcourse).
Any proof to back this statement?karlos wrote:There is no food shortage, this is a drama cooked up by those NWO advocates who want to see eugenics and population controls.
By blaming non existent bio fuelsthe NWO simply shifts our attention WRONGLY.
ps:
The EUSSR actually pays farmers to take land out of production and keep it fallow.
I know you live in London karlos but us country folk know that payment for fallow or set-aside land has been in place for twenty years. Nothing new there then.
So surely if all this land that has been set aside was to be put back into production the crisis would be over and the markt would get flooded again.
Food shortage?
It is a good thing that land is being usd for bio fuels because that will help the trade deficit and help bankrupt farmers start to make a living again.
Food shortage?
It is a good thing that land is being usd for bio fuels because that will help the trade deficit and help bankrupt farmers start to make a living again.

Let's hope so but alas I fear, like I'm sure you do, that the PTB will continue to mismanage the whole food/poverty situation and we'll continue to see the problems we are seeing.karlos wrote:James - when you spoke of rape seed oil being used for fuel u forgot to mention the byproduct is world's second leading source of protein meal.
So more bio diesel means more food.
win win!
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/n ... 4757c61776
Monday, April 14, 2008
Biofuels nothing short of disaster
Environmentalists to blame as emissions worsen, world's poor starve
Lorne Gunter, The Edmonton Journal, Published: yesterday 3:01 am
Note to environmentalists: Remember, you were the ones who demanded biofuels the loudest.
It turns out the production of biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel is likely to cause far more environmental damage than it prevents, not to mention triggering widespread famine and eating up more rainforest and grassland than beef production ever could.
The production and consumption of biofuels releases far more carbon emissions than are prevented when ordinary gasoline and diesel are burned without first being mixed with corn or sugar cane derivatives.
Even the world's first tentative steps towards increasing biofuel production has caused a doubling of annual deforestation rates in the Amazon.
According to Wetlands International, Indonesia has razed so much wilderness to grow palm oil trees for biodiesel that it has moved from the world's 21st-biggest greenhouse gas emitter to third in just the past three years. Only China and the United States -- in that order -- generate more carbon emissions.
With its rapid conversion of rainforest to cane production for fuel, Brazil has slipped into fourth place.
Turns out the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere by chopping down rainforests and switching grassland to corn, cane, soybean or palm oil production far exceeds that released by burning oil pumped from the ground or extracted from oilsands. The original environmental studies advocating biofuels as a way of curbing greenhouse emissions and cleaning the air hadn't taken this into consideration.
Corn-based biofuels are particularly ineffective. After the ethanol is made, the stocks must be destroyed, thereby releasing all the carbon they took up during their growth.
Then there is the biofuel revolution's impact on world food supplies.
According to the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), "37 countries are currently facing food crises." The reasons are complex, ranging from rising fuel costs to floods and droughts.
Still, the great biofuel rush has been a major contributor, as well.
In just the last month, Haiti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia and Madagascar have suffered food riots. Even Pakistan and Mexico have witnessed unrest over food prices -- Mexico City had tortilla riots -- as grains, oilseeds and corn that once went solely to the food market are now being bid on by fuel suppliers, too. The Philippines, Uzbekistan, Bolivia and Cameroon have also had protests or street violence over food.
Again according to the FAO, the price of food staples such as rice and corn has risen 57 per cent in just the past year, driven as much as anything by the need to find feedstock for biofuel production.
In the developed world, where diets are much richer and more varied, the effect of these increases has been minimal -- maybe five to 10 per cent on a family's grocery bill. That's not easily absorbed by everyone, yet since food makes up less than a third of average family spending in industrialized countries, even a 10-per-cent increase in food would add less than three per cent to most families' cost of living.
But in the developing and underdeveloped worlds, the competition for crops from the biofuel industry has increased family food tabs by as much as half, pricing a traditional basic diet out of some families' grasp. Hence the growing number of countries with food crises. And we have only just begun to see what stresses the biofuel craze will create.
In Europe and North America, bio-fuels make up less than five per cent of energy consumed. However, either through government edict or the desire of corporations to appear "green," biofuel consumption is projected to double or triple by 2020.
Thanks to biofuel, the World Bank projects global food costs will stay above 2004 levels until at least 2015. Expect more millions to go hungry just to satisfy the desire of industrial-world environmentalists to be seen to be saving the planet.
The sad irony, of course, is that not only is the developed world's green conscience starving the rest of the world, it's creating more environmental harm -- not less -- in the process.
Talk about the road to hell being paved with good intentions. But watch, in typical liberal fashion, green crusaders will look to blame someone else for their colossal error, in this case, likely, greedy corporations and conservative politicians. Indeed, the revisionism has already begun.
Time magazine, long a champion of environmentalism, recently called the biofuel craze "the clean energy scam." But who did it blame for the fraud?
Al Gore, David Suzuki and the Sierra Club? No. Biofuels, according to Time, have become "the trendy way for politicians and corporations to show they're serious about finding alternative sources of energy and in the process slowing global warming."
In other words, George Bush and Big Oil are to blame.
It's true corporations are pouring $100 billion or more a year into biofuel development. Even our own federal Tories have committed $2 billion to the cause.
But whose hectoring, lobbying, advertising and scaremongering created the political pressure that has compelled politicians and executives to go "green?"
The environmental movement. That's who's behind the disaster of biofuels.
lgunter@shaw.ca
© The Edmonton Journal 2008
"The conflict between corporations and activists is that of narcolepsy versus remembrance. The corporations have money, power and influence. Our sole influence is public outrage. Extract from "Cloud Atlas (page 125) by David Mitchell.
Looks like Russian oil output has now peaked.
Russia has practically matched and sometimes exceeded Saudi Arabia's output for the past few years. This peak is no surprise but is a worrying step forward towards a global peak which will bring about much anarchy; anarchy which has already begun.
This news, announced today, has pushed the oil price up to almost $114/barrel.
Russia has practically matched and sometimes exceeded Saudi Arabia's output for the past few years. This peak is no surprise but is a worrying step forward towards a global peak which will bring about much anarchy; anarchy which has already begun.
This news, announced today, has pushed the oil price up to almost $114/barrel.
and made front page news of the FT (print version) today also.Lukoil VP says Russian oil output peaked in 2007
Moscow (Platts)--15Apr2008
Russian oil production has peaked and may never return to 2007 levels,
a vice president of Russia's second-biggest oil producer Lukoil, Leonid Fedun,
said in a Financial Times interview published Friday.
Fedun said he believed last year's production of about 10 million
barrels/day was the highest he would see "in his lifetime".
Fedun likened Russia to the North Sea and Mexico, where oil production
is declining sharply, saying that in its main oil-producing region of western
Siberia, "the period of intense oil production [growth] is over".
The comments reflect a recent downward trend in the country's crude
production, which has market analysts fretting about the possibility of a
year-on-year decline in production for the first time since 1998.
Russia produced 491.48 million mt (9.83 million b/d) of crude in 2007, up
2.3% from 2006, according to the country's industry and energy ministry.
But in the first two months of 2008, average crude output fell 0.7% to
around 9.75 million b/d, while in March it fell 1.2% to 9.72 million b/d.
A combination of high taxes and rising costs could lead to a further
decline as they prevent producers from increasing investments as existing
resource bases deplete, analysts said.
Oil production in Russia has peaked, warns Lukoil executive
By Carola Hoyos and Javier Blas in London
Published: April 15 2008 03:00 | Last updated: April 15 2008 03:00
Russian oil production has peaked and may never return to current levels, one of the country's top energy executives has warned, fuelling concerns that the world's biggest oil producers cannot keep up with rampant Asian demand.
The warning comes as crude oil prices are trading near their record high of $112 a barrel, stoking inflation in many countries.
Leonid Fedun, the vice-president of Lukoil, Russia's largest independent oil company, told the Financial Times that he believed last year's Russian oil production of about 10m barrels a day was the highest he would see "in his lifetime". Russia is the world's second-biggest oil producer.
Mr Fedun compared Russia with the North Sea and Mexico, where oil production is declining sharply, saying that in the oil-rich region of western Siberia, the mainstay of Russian output, "the period of intense oil production [growth] is over".
The Russian government has admitted that production growth has stagnated, but has shied away from saying that postSoviet output has peaked.
Viktor Khristenko, Russia's energy minister, who is pushing for tax cuts that could stimulate investment, said last week: "The output level we have today is a plateau, stagnation."
Russia was until recently considered the most promising oil region outside the Middle East. Its rapid output growth in the early 2000s helped to meet booming Chinese demand and limited the rise in oil prices.
The trend, however, has turned, with supply dropping below the levels of a year ago
for the first time this decade, according to the International Energy Agency, the energy watchdog.
Mr Fedun's outlook is bleaker than the IEA's, which forecast Russia's oil production would rise to 10.5m barrels a day in 2012 from 9.95m b/d last year. But even the IEA has begun to revise down its projection, making it likely the world will depend more on other sources such as Opec and biofuels.
The sluggish growth in non-Opec supplies and robust demand in China and other emerging countries is this year offsetting a slowdown in US energy demand.
Oil futures yesterday rose to $111.99 a barrel, just below last week's record of $112.21 a barrel. They ended the day at $111.76, a record settlement.
Brazil has found a huge offshore oil field that may hold 33 billion barrels of oil and can prove to be the world's third largest bloc.
The state-run oil company Petrobras 'may have discovered a huge petroleum field that could contain reserves as large as 33 billion barrels', Brazil's National Petroleum Agency President Haroldo Lima told reporters.
"It could be the biggest discovery in the last 30 years and the world's third-biggest currently active field,"
The state-run oil company Petrobras 'may have discovered a huge petroleum field that could contain reserves as large as 33 billion barrels', Brazil's National Petroleum Agency President Haroldo Lima told reporters.
"It could be the biggest discovery in the last 30 years and the world's third-biggest currently active field,"
