If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(London Times)   "Doom-laden forecasts that world oil supplies are poised to fall off the edge of a cliff are wrong, according to leading oil industry experts." Suck it, peak oil zealots   (business.timesonline.co.uk) divider line 35
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

755 clicks; posted to Business » on 17 Jan 2008 at 10:24 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



35 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2008-01-17 08:36:02 PM
Oh well, another liberal 'fact-based argument' (i.e. 'peak-oil') swirls down the drain...
 
2008-01-17 08:50:09 PM
...like anyone would stand to profit from a perceived shortage of an essential commodity...
 
2008-01-17 09:27:07 PM
If we can't trust leading oil industry experts, who can we trust?
 
2008-01-17 09:45:40 PM
I could be wrong, but I don't think that's what "peak oil" people claim. It's not about "running out of oil", it's about the remaining oil becoming harder (and more expensive) to get out of the ground- causing a huge spike in prices.
 
2008-01-17 09:46:16 PM
Which, for the record, isn't what's causing the current high oil prices. So they are right in that respect, I suppose.
 
2008-01-17 09:51:27 PM
I was sucking the juice out of an orange the other day, and when I thought I had pretty much sucked it dry, I threw it into the garbage. Does this mean that there was really lots more juice in that orange, and that I was a fool for throwing it away?

That article was teh sux.

/Not a "peak oil zealot," but unless the earth is miraculously making more oil out of iron, silicone and nickel, it is going to run out, and sooner rather than later.
 
2008-01-17 10:26:10 PM
Only six words in that headline matter. I'll let you guess which six.
 
2008-01-17 10:31:20 PM
CERA has never been accurate and the oil industry knows it.

They are wrong, therefore this article is wrong.

There are serious problems ahead.
 
2008-01-17 10:41:38 PM
Opiate of the Lasses: Only six words in that headline matter. I'll let you guess which six.

that, to, the, a, are, it

What do I win?
 
2008-01-17 10:42:09 PM
So the price of gas will drop back to $1.20 like it was before all this crap right? right?
 
2008-01-17 10:50:17 PM
Opiate of the Lasses: Only six words in that headline matter. I'll let you guess which six.

"Doom-laden forecasts that world oil supplies are poised to fall off the edge of a cliff are wrong, according to leading oil industry experts." Suck it, peak oil zealots


/Can I win too?
 
2008-01-17 11:02:12 PM
www.abandonline.com
 
2008-01-17 11:05:33 PM
I have an inability to think objectively. Therefore, this article is wrong. I am also a huge asshole who likes to voice an opinion based on my personal narrow-minded stupidity. Wait, I think I hear my mother calling.....
 
2008-01-17 11:06:02 PM
Churchill2004: I could be wrong, but I don't think that's what "peak oil" people claim. It's not about "running out of oil", it's about the remaining oil becoming harder (and more expensive) to get out of the ground- causing a huge spike in prices.

Yup. We aren't there yet, but nobody except retards pretends it's an inexhaustible resource. It really isn't, and we really are going to have to start finding more of this dwindling stuff than we ever have before if demand continues to rise. That ain't very likely. The best alternative is to find something else, which the oil companies are spending billions looking for, because they want to remain in the business of printing money.

/oil man.
 
2008-01-17 11:08:25 PM
a) domestic demand growth of oil exporting states
b) bye bye Ghawar field
c) reserves may be doing ok, but only because they represent the economically extractable oil
d) only new major discoveries are further and deeper than anything before

i) there will be oil. For more than 100 years. More than 500 years even.
ii) that oil will be there because no one is willing to pay the cost necessary to extract & refine it
iii) some will 'get rich', and some will 'get poor'
iv) let the next generation of fuel (stored, transportable energy) be decided by smart people free of conflicts of interest
v) these things happen. deal with it. make the most of it. it's not within anyone's power to change it, nor is it in the interest of anyone with lots of power to change it. accept that it has been a great deal up until now, your children won't even get that much
 
2008-01-17 11:08:32 PM
dball2

Keep your head in the sand...and let me know if you find any more oil under there...
 
2008-01-17 11:12:12 PM
Gavino: The best alternative is to find something else, which the oil companies are spending billions looking for, because they want to remain in the business of printing money.

/oil man.


Oil's only chance to stay in the energy game will be if they buy the right company, and the right people, at the right time.
 
2008-01-18 12:57:17 AM
Funny how all the peak oil stuff raises oil prices and helps oil companies. If I owned a business that sold a commodity, I sure would want people thinking we are running out of it.
 
2008-01-18 01:05:05 AM
I'd like to see one of these experts tell Lord Humongous that there's plenty of oil.
 
2008-01-18 02:01:33 AM
DoctorOfLove: Funny how all the peak oil stuff raises oil prices and helps oil companies. If I owned a business that sold a commodity, I sure would want people thinking we are running out of it.

If people thought that oil is running out, and the government decided to act on it by making new laws to conserve oil, the oil companies would end up with a pretty big dent in their income.
 
2008-01-18 03:35:28 AM
www.provide.net
Hello, my name is Daniel Yergin and that graph never really happened. Trust me - I am an economist!
www.pbs.org
 
2008-01-18 03:38:49 AM
h to the 'ojo: a) domestic demand growth of oil exporting states and China and India
b) bye bye Ghawar field
c) reserves may be doing ok, but only because they represent the economically extractable oil
d) only new major discoveries are further and deeper than anything before

i) there will be oil. For more than 100 years. More than 500 years even.
ii) that oil will be there because no one is willing to pay the cost necessary to extract & refine it
iii) some will 'get rich', and some will 'get poor'
iv) let the next generation of fuel (stored, transportable energy) be decided by smart people free of conflicts of interest
v) these things happen. deal with it. make the most of it. it's not within anyone's power to change it, nor is it in the interest of anyone with lots of power to change it. accept that it has been a great deal up until now, your children won't even get that much


Please try not to contaminate Fark discussions with rational argument. It won't get you anywhere.
 
2008-01-18 04:46:53 AM
This short video will get you thinking. Trust me! (new window)
 
2008-01-18 07:25:31 AM
Opiate of the Lasses: Only six words in that headline matter. I'll let you guess which six.

The words are "according to leading oil industry experts." Either the peak oil deniers are stupid, or willfully ignorant. You see, most of their arguments stem from the assumption that it is in Big Oil's interest to have people believing that a peak will happen soon.

So why is Exxon Mobil actively denying it in an advertising campaign?
Why is its CEO, Rex Tillerson, going on MSNBC and denying Peak Oil?
Why is Shell doing likewise?

Oh, I know...it's reverse psychology, right? So, right in the farking article, Big Oil is saying that the peak won't happen soon. (No one, apart from whatever idiot wrote the headline, is saying that oil will never run out...just that it won't run out within the next ten years.) I have a gut feeling none of the peak oil deniers actually read the article, because if they had, their heads would have exploded.
 
2008-01-18 08:11:35 AM
h to the 'ojo: Oil's only chance to stay in the energy game will be if they buy the right company, and the right people, at the right time.

I can see why you'd say that, but I disagree. Nobody has the R&D budget, talent and access to academia that the major operators do. They also have whole stream ability to exploit and market. Not to mention the lobbying power to ensure pesky governments do what they're told when it comes to ensuring the 'right' solution is full of win. It's not right, but it's the case.
 
2008-01-18 08:26:34 AM
Churchill2004: It's not about "running out of oil", it's about the remaining oil becoming harder (and more expensive) to get out of the ground

Well, that's probably what they'll change the argument to now.

Everything I've seen said it's about running out of oil soon.
 
2008-01-18 08:29:35 AM
Of course Oil is not going to suddenly dry up.

Oil production is, however, going to plateau, then drop down, over an extended period. This is going to make prices far more volatile as demand has only gone one direction... up.
 
2008-01-18 08:54:34 AM
It was proposed in 1950 by M King Hubbert, a US geologist, who successfully predicted the peak of onshore oil production in the United States. His analysis is disputed by many geologists today, who argue that technology has changed the equation, allowing oil companies to produce more oil from reservoirs than was previously possible.

Ahem.

wolf.readinglitho.co.uk

I don't know any geologists who dispute objective reality, like the fact that M. King Hubbert accurately predicted the peak of U.S. oil production, which actually happened.

Then there's this:

A landmark study of more than 800 oilfields by Cambridge Energy Research Associates (Cera) has concluded that rates of decline are only 4.5 per cent a year, almost half the rate previously believed, leading the consultancy to conclude that oil output will continue to rise over the next decade.

CERA has noted that oil production decline rates are "only" 4.5%/year, leading them to conclude that production will increase over the next decade. So, let me get this straight here: If production is declining, it means production is rising. Huh?

BTW, if production decline rates are "only" 4.5%/year, that means total production for any given field is halved in about 15 years. Actual rates of decline are much steeper, like in the case of Cantarell. (new window)

MEXICO CITY: The chief executive of Mexico state oil monopoly Petroleos Mexicanos, or Pemex, said Wednesday the company expects production at its Cantarell oil field to decline by an average of 14 percent a year between 2007 and 2015.

Speaking to members of the Senate Energy Committee, Luis Ramirez Corzo said the average annual decline is equivalent to about 150,000 barrels a day.

The offshore Cantarell, Mexico's largest source of crude oil, began declining in 2005 from a record 2.13 million barrels a day in 2004.


Thius article is hogwash based on a study by CERA that is hogwash.
 
2008-01-18 09:12:48 AM
The "there will be no catastrophic drop" straw man argument is getting old. No one except far-left nihilistic liberals say that. However, moderates within and without the oil industry agree that there are practical limits to how much of a non-renewable resource you can extract, causing supply to eventually level off and slowly decline.

Problem is that skyrocketing demand and colossal waste will make that plateau feel like a cliff. Kinda like when a stunt car hits flat ground after flying off a jump -- if you're going breakneck speed, just because the top is flat doesn't mean the fall won't crush you. Moderates only want a sound energy policy to slow the metaphorical stunt car down, turning the "jump" into a "bump", but Bil Oil and the freepers don't even want to do that. OTOH, far-left liberals want to slam on the brakes, which could kill you just as easily.

Big Oil wants to deny peak oil because they want to maximize the profit of their investments. Sure, a panic will raise prices, but only temporarily -- not for decades. Conservation can stretch out the use of an oil field or refinery over decades. The greedy bastards want the money now, even if their policies will eventually destroy the entire global economy.

P.S. I said global economy, not "ZOMG TEH WORLD". Civilizations rise and implode all the time. Historically, it happens quite regularly -- long-term, Peak Oil will be just another ass-farking like the Fall of Rome, the Black Plague or WW2. Life could royally suck for a few decades or centuries, but while Peak Oil might make a Top Ten list of significant historical events, I wouldn't even put it in the Top 3. It'll hit us like a ton of bricks, though, because most Americans (short of WW2 veterans) haven't witnessed a TRUE historical event, as demonstrated by the panic attack everyone got on 9/11. 3000 people dying in a day is a tragedy, but that's NOTHING to a lot of countries. Frankly, we're kinda overdue for a royal kick in the butt.
 
2008-01-18 09:29:12 AM
dragonchild: The "there will be no catastrophic drop" straw man argument is getting old. No one except far-left nihilistic liberals say that.

Grr, I meant to say "there will be no catastrophic drop" is a straw man argument because no one except the kooky far-left claim there will be a catastrophic drop.
 
2008-01-18 10:42:30 AM
http://www.theoildrum.com/ (new window)

There's a section on the right side called "Peak Oil Primers" - read them. The whole site is worth checking regularly, too.
 
2008-01-18 10:43:43 AM
You kids need to go to the source to get your argument on:

peakoil.com (new window)

/run by another farker.
//nice guy, too.
 
2008-01-18 12:49:06 PM
Well the demons are still dancing at the end of my shotgun.

And where are those damn lifepacks!
 
2008-01-18 02:07:02 PM
"Doom-laden forecasts that world oil supplies are poised to fall off the edge of a cliff are wrong, according to leading oil industry experts." Suck it, peak oil zealots"

Oh this is about oil!. Dang, I thought the next version of Doom was coming out.
 
2008-01-19 08:53:07 AM
 
Displayed 35 of 35 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report