Peak Oil News Megapack (3 Stories Related to oil crisis)

[K. A. Pital]

- high scientific progress rate
- medium scientific progress rate
- current scientific progress rate

[Illuminatus Primus]

Silly Ivan. This isn't about science, its about your evil corruption and lack of Western values, democracy, and corporate innovation. You need to dismantle Gazprom and sell it off to Exxon-Mobil and Shell! Then you'll see an economic-oil renaissance!

[Admiral Valdemar]

I think we should aim for PetroChina first. They're the first trillion with a "t" company out there, and they don't even earn as much as the smallest Western oil company.

Nah, couldn't be overvalued.

[Natorgator]

Well, I'm glad this is at least starting to get more press. This was on the front page of Time.com:

Oil prices hit a record high of $97 a barrel on Tuesday, but the next generation of consumers could look back on that price with envy. The dire predictions of a key report on international oil supplies released Wednesday suggest that oil prices could move irreversibly over the $100 a barrel threshold in the not too distant future, as the global economy faces a serious energy shortage.

This gloomy assessment comes from the International Energy Agency, the Paris-based organization representing the 26 rich, gas-guzzling member nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The agency is not known for alarmist warnings, and its World Energy Outlook is typically viewed by policy wonks as a solid indicator of global energy supplies. In a marked change from its traditionally bland, measured tones, the IEA's 2007 report says governments need to make urgent, bold decisions on energy policy, or risk massive environmental and energy-supply crises within two decades — crises and shortages that could spark serious global conflicts.

"I am sorry to say this, but we are headed toward really bad days," IEA chief economist Fatih Birol told TIME this week. "Lots of targets have been set but very little has been done. There is a lot of talk and no action." .

The reason for the IEA's alarm is its expectation that economic development will raise global energy demands by about 50% in a generation, from today's 85 million barrels a day to about 116 million barrels a day in 2030. Nearly half that increase in demand will come from just two countries — China and India, which are electrifying hundreds of cities and putting millions of new cars on their roads, most driven by people who once walked, or rode bicycles and buses. By 2030, those two countries will be responsible for two-thirds of the world's carbon gas emissions, which are the primary human activity causing global warming .

India and China have argued against enforcing strict emission controls in their countries, on the grounds that these could hinder their economic growth and prompt a global economic slowdown. But the new IEA report says working with China and India on alternative energy sources and curbing emissions is a matter of global urgency.

The bad news is not only environmental. As the world scrambles to boost energy supplies over the next two decades, an ever-greater percentage of its supplies of oil and gas will come from a dwindling number of countries, largely arrayed around the Persian Gulf, as the massive North Sea and Gulf of Mexico deposits are finally exhausted. That will leave the industrialized countries far more dependent on the volatile Middle East in 2030 than they are today, and the likes of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iran will dictate terms to companies like ExxonMobil and Chevron, which increasingly operate as contractors to state-run oil companies in many producer nations.

"Most of the oil companies are going to be in an identity crisis, and need to redefine their business strategies," Birol says. The soul-searching may have already begun, as oil executives begin sounding the alarm about the supply crunch that lies ahead. Last week, Christophe de Margerie, CEO of the French oil giant Total, told the Financial Times that even the target of 100 million barrels a day is an optimistic one for an industry that currently produces 85 million — far short of the 116 million barrels a day the IEA projects will be needed by 2030 to fuel the global economy.

And in a sharp departure from the usually reassuring comments offered by Big Oil executives, De Margerie said companies and governments now realize that they have overestimated the amount of oil that could be extracted from places difficult to reach and costly to explore. "It is not my view, it is the industry view," he said. In other words, the message is that the current sky-high oil prices may not be a temporary burden on the world economy.

Forecasting prices, however, has become an increasingly inexact science for analysts, as prices in recent months have galloped ahead of their worst predictions. Says Oswald Clint, a London-based analyst for Sanford Bernstein: "A year ago, our predictions for November 2007 were about $50 to $62 dollars a barrel" — at least $35 short of Tuesday's price. The oil-research firm predicts that expanded production will bring oil prices back to $70 a barrel by 2010. But to Birol, that sounds optimistic.

"If you want to lower prices you have to slow down oil demand growth in China and India, use cars more efficiently, use biofuels, and also convince producing countries to pump more oil," says Birol. But he is uncertain any of that will happen. "I don't see the political will." Then again, nothing fuels political will like a soaring price at the gas pump.

Of course, I don't think anyone will actually listen. Too bad we can't get Bono or Al Gore to promote this.

[Admiral Valdemar]

ITN will have a special report on oil this evening. It's official people: we have peaked.

[K. A. Pital]

Idiots in Russia have been crying their eyes out of joy. "Saudi A-Russia Dream Come True!" "With Such Prices, Every Russian Could be given 10,000 USD at Birth!" and similar bullcrap in the news and papers.

Of course, spiralling oil prices also drive up food prices, combined with biofuel hysteria - and in general reduce the energy supply to productive industries. But the Oil Utopia is in da nearest yearz! Yeah! Supply of oil would be dwindling and higher prices are only compensating that fall? Try talking to a brick wall.

I just can't express my frustration at those morons.

[J]

It's not a peak; it's a unexplained supply side conundrum.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Holy shit! Peak oil being discussed with Jeremy Leggett on Newsnight now and apparently A Crude Awakening opens in theatres here this week too.

The shit has hit the fan. I can't wait for the EIA petroleum report next week once Mexico's losses have finally been factored in.

[Chardok]

Holy shit! Peak oil being discussed with Jeremy Leggett on Newsnight now and apparently A Crude Awakening opens in theatres here this week too.

The shit has hit the fan. I can't wait for the EIA petroleum report next week once Mexico's losses have finally been factored in.

You're saying we're all going to have an OCP?

[Admiral Valdemar]

I'd say so. When the traders all collectively cotton on to the fact that this is not because Turks are rattling sabres or traders suddenly wanting to invest in oil a lot, but because of physical shortages. I expect $100 oil by next week, and then more acceptance of the formerly whacky peak oil idea.

I guess not even CERA and the IEA/EIA can deny it now.

[Darth Wong]

Idiots in Russia have been crying their eyes out of joy. "Saudi A-Russia Dream Come True!" "With Such Prices, Every Russian Could be given 10,000 USD at Birth!" and similar bullcrap in the news and papers.

Of course, spiralling oil prices also drive up food prices, combined with biofuel hysteria - and in general reduce the energy supply to productive industries. But the Oil Utopia is in da nearest yearz! Yeah! Supply of oil would be dwindling and higher prices are only compensating that fall? Try talking to a brick wall.

I just can't express my frustration at those morons.

Certain people will make money. One of the strange phenomena about capitalism is the way everyone reads the news and thinks they will automatically benefit from "economic growth" even if their own personal income shows no signs whatsoever of increasing.

[aerius]

One of the strange phenomena about capitalism is the way everyone reads the news and thinks they will automatically benefit from "economic growth" even if their own personal income shows no signs whatsoever of increasing.

Because as we all know, economic growth will always trickle down and make everyone richer. Too bad it doesn't work that way in the real world.

[Darth Wong]

One of the strange phenomena about capitalism is the way everyone reads the news and thinks they will automatically benefit from "economic growth" even if their own personal income shows no signs whatsoever of increasing.

Because as we all know, economic growth will always trickle down and make everyone richer. Too bad it doesn't work that way in the real world.

What's really interesting is the way people react in a completely different way if it's an employer. If your employer has been reporting strong earnings growth for the past 30 years but hasn't given you a raise in all that time, employees would be absolutely enraged. But the same situation is true in the country as a whole for the bottom 80% of earners, and no one thinks anyone at all is wrong.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I believe that if you're not earning an increase of 3.8% or thereabouts annually, then you're losing out. The rate of inflation, in the US at least, is far higher than reported, and so a lot of people are more than likely suffering a net loss in disposable income at the end of the day.

So not only does your hard earned greenback supply not look so healthy anymore, each note is also buying you less as the value goes down the swanny.

[Guardsman Bass]

Although I won't vouch for its accuracy, Chris Matthews' Hardball just had Jim Cramer of Mad Money on, and they were talking about the up and coming oil crisis. Cramer said that he thinks gas prices in the US will hit $4/gallon in the next three months, and that within ten years we will looking at $10/gallon, since "we're just not finding any". He was also very emphatic in his support for nuclear power; he said that you could build a nuclear power plant in three years, but it takes seven years in the US, and "that's a travesty." Again, I won't vouch for its accuracy, but it's good that it's coming up on television.

[Androsphinx]

A wonderful microcosm of the situation happened to me last night. Lord Turner, who runs the Economic and Social Research Council talked about the next 25 years. On the record he was upbeat, predicting the continued rise of China and India well into the 2030s. He had a endorsement of various demographic explanations for their recent success (esp the Chinese), which are not really talked about in pulbic (1 child policy, etc), and talked a lot about climate change.

When he took questions he was asked about Peak Oil, agreed that we had probably hit it, and said that "I would love it if the oil were about to run out, that would really help us with carbon quotas and suchlike". He also emphasised the environmental damage of coal-to-oil and the tar salts, on which he grounded his optimism.

At drinks afterwards, he said "It's clear we need to get off oil pretty bloody fast", had no idea how the 55% increase in demand that the IEA are predicting will be met, and dismissed out of hand (when asked by a PO n00b) both biofuels and renewables. This is hardly the first time that this had happened to me, and I'm sure it sounds familiar. I just hope he doesn't leave the PO warnings to the after-dinner drinks when he advises the government

He also, which was interesting, threw out a semi-non-sequitur about the lack of drilling in the ME for the last 20 years - how although people are finding less and less oil at higher and higher prices, there could still be a huge amount in the ME, which no-one has looked for. I do not know if this is true, but he seemed to be concerned to leave people feeling happy.

[His Divine Shadow]

How about some positive news amidst all the doom and gloom?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7086264.stm

[Androsphinx]

How about some positive news amidst all the doom and gloom?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7086264.stm

You bought us a year. Well done. Another hundred million people to create impossible demand.

[J]

Someone on the The Oil Drum worked out the math to see how much oil we'd have to find to meet the IEA's projected demand growth. In short, once the we pass peak we'd need to find a new Saudi Arabia every year to make supply match up with projected demand. Frankly, we have a better chance of achieving viable nuclear fusion power.

[His Divine Shadow]

How about some positive news amidst all the doom and gloom?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7086264.stm

You bought us a year. Well done. Another hundred million people to create impossible demand.

It'll take a decade to get this up and running full speed from what I understand so I think it'll be used instead to buy time and soften the blow primarily to the US who'll be closest and richest.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Here's the ITV News report from the other night.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Look, there's six Saudi Arabias in Siberia and they only need Amerikan Capitalism to get it out. Climate change will never be a problem. We need to increase military spending! Deploy forces and use waterboarding on the Greenomunist threat!

[Colonel Olrik]

Look, there's six Saudi Arabias in Siberia and they only need Amerikan Capitalism to get it out. Climate change will never be a problem. We need to increase military spending! Deploy forces and use waterboarding on the Greenomunist threat!

Damnit, that stopped being funny 20 posts ago.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Look, there's six Saudi Arabias in Siberia and they only need Amerikan Capitalism to get it out. Climate change will never be a problem. We need to increase military spending! Deploy forces and use waterboarding on the Greenomunist threat!

Damnit, that stopped being funny 20 posts ago.

Party pooper.

Where's the headlines in the U.S.? Are we really this retrograde compared to the UK?

Anyone want to take wagers on when PO appears front-page, New York Times?

[Androsphinx]

Sorry:

Technically, March 5th, 2007