Peak Oil Confounded; neo Malthusians hardest hit.

There is a perverse and ongoing insistence that vital resources are (or will) run out leaving humanity in a bad situation. In reality, the dynamics of free markets and technological progress consistently prove these claims false. The current example for your attention: Peak Oil.

U.S. Ousts Russia as Top World Oil, Gas Producer in BP Data

by Rakteem Katakey, BloomburgBusiness

The U.S. has taken Russia’s crown as the biggest oil and natural-gas producer in a demonstration of the seismic shifts in the world energy landscape emanating from America’s shale fields.
U.S. oil production rose to a record last year, gaining 1.6 million barrels a day, according to BP Plc’s Statistical Review of World Energy released on Wednesday. Gas output also climbed, putting America ahead of Russia as a producer of the hydrocarbons combined.
The data showing the U.S.’s emergence as the top driller confirms a trend that’s helped the world’s largest economy reduce imports, caused a slump in global energy prices and shifted the country’s foreign policy priorities.

Frack the neo-Malthusians.

OUTRAGE: Teachers Union Caught Using Tax Dollars to Fund Tax Hike Campaign
Maybe Bruce should instead be called Carl Jung Jenner, or maybe even Sophia Jenner
  • Commander_Chico
  • Commander_Chico
    • Chico, it matters not where crude oil is found or how much it costs to produce it.
      What matters is whether or not Mother Nature is creating crude oil as fast as (or faster than) Mankind is using it.

      • Commander_Chico

        How can you say it matters not what the cost of production is? If it costs $1000 a barrel to extract oil from the bottom of the Pacific, it means the end of the oil economy. The recent fall in the oil price has already shut down some wells producing at a higher cost.

        Many low-cost oil reservoirs have been tapped out over the years. How are the oil fields of Pennsylvania and Romania doing now?

        • jim_m

          What a f-ing crackpot. The future for our lifetimes and our children’s lifetimes is fossil fuels. Thanks for the lunatic rant that solar and wind power will save us when they are currently unsustainable without huge government subsidies and actually cost close to the $1000 a barrel oil you talk about.

          Your comment was good for comedic value but little else. As we have seen with shale, what was once prohibitively costly to extract becomes far less so once that process has been established and people have had the opportunity to streamline it and improve it. Start up costs are always steep for new technologies and processes.

          Still, there are hundreds if not thousands of years worth of oil in deposits we currently know about and we are still discovering more.

          Go hang out with Pat Robertson, you make as much sense and your ideas are just as relevant.

          • Commander_Chico
          • And… 2010 is the end of that one.

            Seriously?

          • jim_m

            Inflation adjusted?

          • cstmbuild

            As someone who is involved in the oil industry (specifically fracing), the $80 cost of production is pure BS in my area. The producers can make money as long as oil stays above $40/bbl and will keep producing all the way down to $30/bbl. They may not be making as much money (obviously) and they may slow exploration and drilling, but $80/bbl? Complete hogwash. Tar sands production? Maybe….but the cost keeps going down as they improve the tech.

            BTW, Oklahoma was ‘out of oil’, so the experts stated several years ago. Currently we are working on one and maybe two finds that are each bigger than the Bakken field and a WHOLE lot cheaper to produce.

          • Commander_Chico

            What are you talking about? Solar is a very affordable option now, only an idiot or a person living in Seattle with no sun would not put solar panels on their house.

            http://blogs-images.forbes.com/peterdiamandis/files/2014/09/price-history-silicon1.png

    • 2007 graph? Got anything that’s not 7 years old?

    • Retired military

      A much more pertient chart would be showing the number of nuclear power plants that liberals have stopped from coming online in the past 40 years.

      • Yeah, because all that radioactive steam rising from Fukushima and Chernobyl is actually good for us!
        Jeez!

        • jim_m

          You do recognize that the US has never used graphite reactors like in Cherenobyl for exactly the reasons that it went wrong? Of course not because you are an ignorant ass.

          You do realize that that Fukushima disaster was unforeseeable and that at least 4 levels of safeguards were destroyed by a natural disaster the likes of which had not been seen in centuries? Of course not because you lack any sense of history or common sense.

          Nuclear energy is far safer than luddites like yourself will ever admit. You fight against power sources that will actually produce the energy we need and support sources that are far too costly, economically unfeasible and incapable of meeting the current power demands of our society. You also overlook the environmental damage that wind and solar power do with the wholesale slaughter of avian wildlife and disruption of acres upon acres of habitat that would otherwise be left undisturbed.

          You militate against what works in favor of what doesn’t to advance an agenda of control that would turn back the clock to the 18th century if you could manage it. You are probably ignorant that as you drive your pious er, Prius, down the street that it is powered by electricity that comes at least in part from a fossil fuel plant, making your arrogant display one of ignorance as you have a car that is actually less green than most diesel automobiles today. Even my Bay Area friends are cognizent of that fact.

        • Chernobyl – a really crappy ’50s Soviet design, operated by folks who didn’t understand it, told to go through an experiment that was a REALLY bad idea. They don’t make reactors like that any more, and it was obsolete at the time.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Accident

          Fukushima – plant designed for a Richter 8 earthquake, surviving a Richter 9 – about a thousand times MORE powerful than it was designed for, AND a tsunami higher than their sea wall – which flooded the basements where the emergency generators were.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#Monday.2C_7_March

          Three Mile Island – Bad design in the control room – since rectified. No meltdown, no escaped radiation.

          Might take some time to learn more about them – since “The Simpsons” really isn’t all that helpful when it comes to nuclear power.

          • jim_m

            One gets the impression that his ideas of nuclear safety come from The Simpsons and The China Syndrome, both of which he apparently believes to be documentaries.

          • Yeah. About all you can do is put up the facts – they’re probably going to hold to their opinions no matter what.

            (Really, does he think the steam from cooling towers is radioactive or something?)

          • jim_m

            My father was on the ground floor of nuclear power development in the 50’s and helped develop many of the safety systems used today. My nephew is a PhD in Nuclear Engineering. The left’s views on nuclear power have as much resemblance to reality as a child’s crayon drawing has to the Mona Lisa.

          • I know. It’s kind of sad, really…

          • Bazz12

            I can relate something that was told to me by a friend that was with the Australian delegation at the Atomic Energy conference in Vienna in 1956. The Russians describe the reactor of the Chernobyl type and after the presentation a number of the attendees warned the Russians that there was a risk of the very problem with the moderators that caused the problem at Chernobyl. My friend was in charge of the reactor in Australia for some considerable time and he knew what he was talking about.

  • If Americans pay less at the gas pump and less for goods because of lower fuel costs, then they win. Gotta love supply and demand.

  • jim_m

    I had a recent discussion with two benighted fools at work who swore that Malthus was a man ahead of his time and that his ideas would still be proven correct. Such is the thinking on the left today.

    Since they live in the Bay Area it certainly serves to explain why California is so messed up.

    • So what you’re saying is, since the idea comes from the left, it is automatically wrong – no counter-argument necessary. Also, calling them fools proves it, as does the Bay area thing. Three ad hominems in one message and no argument. Is this the way you always discuss stuff? Does it ever work when you’re not smugly talking with your conservative friends?
      Maybe I’m crazy, but I was always taught that if you start calling names, you’ve automatically lost. But hey, I’m sure you can go to your friends and they’ll agree that I’m an asshole and that Peak Oil is a fantasy, despite the fact that we haven’t increased crude oil production in a decade, LOL.

      • jim_m

        Seriously? Read it again if you think that was what I said. I criticized the idiotic position that Malthus is right. Do I really have to argue that Malthus was wrong? Are you really claiming that Thomas Malthus’ prediction of global starvation from 200 years ago was correct? It seems relatively obvious to anyone with a functioning brain stem that he was wrong in his prediction.

        As for ad hom attacks, I don’t see “Bay Area” as an ad hom.

        Peak Oil refers to supply and reserves not merely production, dumbass. Just becaus ewe don’t increase how much we pump out doesn’t mean that our supply is flat or declining. Our known reserves have continued to expand as we have developed new techniques for both exploration are recovery of resources. Go keep on living in ignorance whilst awaiting your predictions of doom that failed 2 centuries ago. I am sure that your idiot friend find your ahistorical concepts to be very convincing. But then I try not to follow people with room temp IQ’s that lack a basic understanding of history.

      • http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-33018802

        It’s funny the things you find when you bother to look.

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

    Interesting look at the whole concept.

    • Commander_Chico

      Yeah, all those petroleum geologists know nothing.

      • I said the concept – not the validity thereof.

      • Does their working theory explain the vast quantities of hydrocarbons observed on Titan?

        Instapundit

        SO EITHER OIL CAN BE FORMED VIA GEOLOGICAL PROCESSES, OR TITAN HAS UNDISCOVERED LIFE: Titan Has More Oil Than Earth. “Saturn’s smoggy moon Titan has hundreds of times more natural gas and other liquid hydrocarbons than all the known oil and natural gas reserves on Earth, scientists said today. The hydrocarbons rain from the sky on the miserable moon, collecting in vast deposits that form lakes and dunes. This much was known. But now the stuff has been quantified using observations from NASA’s Cassini spacecraft.”

  • Walter_Cronanty

    Renewables, the late 20th, early 21st centuries’ snake oil.

    “In 2007, Google GOOGL -0.3%, the internet search giant based in Mountain View, CA CA +0.71%, made a media splash by investing big-time dollars in an effort to develop a renewable energy technology that could compete economically with coal.

    The project was called RE<C and it ended only four years after it began.

    Finally, more than three years after the fact, Ross Koningstein and David Fork, the Google engineers that ran RE<C, published a piece on IEEE Spectrum explaining why Google gave up on RE<C.

    'RE<C invested in large-scale renewable energy projects and investigated a wide range of innovative technologies, such as self-assembling wind turbine towers, drilling systems for geothermal energy, and solar thermal power systems, which capture the sun’s energy as heat . . . By 2011, however, it was clear that RE<C would not be able to deliver a technology that could compete economically with coal.'"

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2014/11/30/why-google-stopped-trying-to-make-renewable-energy-cheaper-than-coal/

    • Walter_Cronanty

      Good article on why Google gave up on its renewables cost less than coal [RE<C] project http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2014/11/30/why-google-stopped-trying-to-make-renewable-energy-cheaper-than-coal/

      • Don’t seem to be… What problems are you having?

        • Walter_Cronanty

          OK, I’ll try again. This was going to be my cut and paste after original sentence re: snake oil. [EDIT] Same thing is happening. There are two paragraphs after the two showing up below, together with cite. They don’t show up when I post, but when I click “Edit” to see if I can add them, they show up.

          “In 2007, Google the internet search giant based in Mountain View, CA, made a media splash by investing big-time dollars in an effort to develop a renewable energy technology that could compete economically with coal.

          The project was called RE<C and it ended only four years after it began.

          […]

          Finally, more than three years after the fact, Ross Koningstein and David Fork, the Google engineers that ran RE<C, published a piece on IEEE Spectrum explaining why Google gave up on RE<C.

          'RE<C invested in large-scale renewable energy projects and investigated a wide range of innovative technologies, such as self-assembling wind turbine towers, drilling systems for geothermal energy, and solar thermal power systems, which capture the sun’s energy as heat . . . By 2011, however, it was clear that RE<C would not be able to deliver a technology that could compete economically with coal.'"

          http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2014/11/30/why-google-stopped-trying-to-make-renewable-energy-cheaper-than-coal/

          • Try pasting it into a Notepad window, and seeing if there’s anything odd after the point it cuts out. Then copy it and paste it as plain text.

            Hope this helps!

          • Walter_Cronanty

            OK, one more try. [EDIT] I’m leaving this the way it came out. I know I’m a dinosaur when it comes to tech, but why does every single latest and greatest change make things more difficult? Copied and pasted to One Note, which looks fine, then copied and posted that here – disaster [End EDIT].

            “In 2007, Google, the internet search giant based in
            Mountain View, CA, made a media splash by investing
            big-time dollars in an effort to develop a renewable energy
            technology that could compete economically with coal.

            The project was called RE<C and it ended only four years after it began.

            […]

            Finally, more than three years after the fact, Ross Koningstein and David Fork, the Google engineers that ran RE<C, published a piece on IEEE Spectrum explaining why Google gave up on
            RE<C.

            'RE<C invested in large-scale renewable energy projects and investigated a wide range of innovative technologies, such as self-assembling wind turbine towers, drilling systems for geothermal energy, and solar thermal power systems, which capture
            the sun’s energy as heat . . . By 2011, however, it was clear that RE<C would not be able to deliver a technology that could compete economically with coal.'"

          • Woof. That’s… strange…

            Absent a lot of cleanup, you might as well just post the link and say “CLICK HERE. The damn thing ain’t gonna cooperate.”…

  • Bazz12

    Extraordinary that people are still trying to deny peak oil. Wakey wakey it happened according to the OECDs International Energy Authority in 2006.
    Why do you think the price has taken to leeping all over the scale ?
    The present is the 2nd cycle, will there be a 3rd cycle ?
    Who knows, but Goldielocks is dead ! There is no just right price.
    That is the final proof you need.

    • Yeah. Nothing at all has changed in 8 years. No new finds, no new tech…

      Sigh.

      Really, are you that stupid or do you just play like it on the internet?