Peak oil in the media - Nov 21
by Staff
Click on the headline (link) for the full text. Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Monday, in a front-page article, The Wall Street Journal reported that many Western oil industry executives have come round to that view. After years of discounting predictions of peak oil production, these industry leaders and some officials of oil producing nations now say oil production will plateau during or before 2012.
U.S. crude oil refinery inputs averaged 14.9 million barrels per day during the week ending November 16, down 151,000 barrels per day from the previous week's average. Refineries operated at 87.0 percent of their operable capacity last week. Even if we don't pop $100 today, at this level it won't take much volatility to take it above $100. At this point, I wish we would get it over with, so I will stop waking up at night and checking prices.
... I agree with Donald's contention that, "as we reach peak oil [the point at which global demand outstrips supply] other [energy] sources have to be valued higher." Donald specifically likes coal producer Peabody Energy (NYSE: BTU), which has interests in about 40 U.S. and Australian coal operations. He appears to have a point in that, at today's crude prices, coal becomes a progressively more attractive oil substitute, and coal liquefaction also becomes more economically justifiable. Lou is writing a book on "The Oil Crunch," and was kind enough to send me a couple dozen slides he used during a talk on the subject recently. His contention -- if I might attempt to paraphrase him -- is that we're at or near the worldwide peak oil point. As he noted regarding his presentation on the issue, "I had both deep greenies and a retired ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM) exec in the audience, and no one threw anything at me, so either I walked a very fine line or totally lost them all. I'm still trying to figure out which." Bennett believes that, "The largest immediate danger to oil supplies lies in the actions of Russian and Venezuela. If either, or both, decide to play their energy card against the U.S. and Europe, the price of oil and gas will soar up, up, and away." That's a contention that's difficult to contest, especially if you also include Iran and perhaps Kazakhstan in the mix. Think about it: Crude's up big just this year, despite reasonably good behavior on the parts of the usual list of miscreants.
The most interesting thing to me is how oil moved in the past week against a negative news background. The IEA reduced its forecast for oil demand last week, a U.S., if not global, recession was looking increasingly likely, and the weekly oil numbers failed to deliver the expected inventory decline. What happened? Oil dropped from the mid-90’s all the way down to…nearly $91. And then it bounced right back up. A second interesting move was a noticeable reduction in the degree of backwardization in the “strip,” the series of oil futures prices going out five years. Backwardization means the prices are lower in later periods. It suggests that traders believe high prices are a more near term phenomenon than one that will persist. The opposite is called “contango” and the market seems to switch between the two for reasons that are not clear to me, or, as far as I’ve been able to discern so far, to anyone else either. If anyone knows of a good analysis of this, I’d love to get a reference to it. Anyway, over the past week or so, the out months of oil contracts have gotten stronger than the front months. What these two actions say to me is that oil is damn strong and looking to get stronger in the more distant future. Why? The real answer: nobody knows. But for what it’s worth, I think it’s not because we might bomb Iran (we won’t), or because Pakistan may fall apart (it might), or because speculators are speculating (they are). It is simple because the reality of Peak Oil is becoming understood by more and more people.
Climate refugees are becoming more common around the world, particularly due to the droughts that result when a decrease in rainfall combines with higher temperatures, and therefore a higher rate of evaporation, to greatly reduce the available water. As this problem grows, the potential for conflict grows with it. |
news by category
- Resources
- Regions
- Related Issues
featured content
- Authors
- Dan Allen
- Cecile Andrews
- Sharon Astyk
- Megan Quinn Bachman
- Albert Bates
- Ugo Bardi
- Dan Bednarz
- Rebecca Burgess
- Sarah Byrnes
- Molly Scott Cato
- Kurt Cobb
- Dave Cohen
- Erik Curren
- Lindsay Curren
- Andrew Curry
- Herman Daly
- Kris De Decker
- Rob Dietz
- Charlotte Du Cann
- Rahul Goswami
- John Michael Greer
- Nate Hagens
- Richard Heinberg
- Øyvind Holmstad
- Rob Hopkins
- Robert Jensen
- Brian Kaller
- Frank Kaminski
- Paul Kingsnorth
- Amanda Kovattana
- Ellen LaConte
- Gene Logsdon
- Kathy McMahon
- Asher Miller
- Bill McKibben
- Rick Munroe
- Tom Murphy
- Andrew Nikiforuk
- Dmitry Orlov
- Christine Patton
- Damien Perrotin
- Dave Pollard
- Joanne Poyourow
- Barath Raghavan
- Wayne Roberts
- Stuart Staniford
- John Thackara
- Gail Tverberg
- Tom Whipple
- More authors...
- Publishers
- ASPO-USA
- Civil Eats
- Climate Progress
- Culture Change
- Energy Bulletin
- Fernand Braudel Center
- Feasta
- Nourishing the Planet
- Oil Depletion Analysis Centre
- On the Commons
- OpenDemocracy
- OpenEconomy
- Post Carbon Institute
- Shareable
- Solutions
- The Daly News
- The Oil Drum
- Shareable
- TomDispatch.com
- Transition Milwaukee
- Transition Voice
- Yale Environment 360
- Yes! Magazine
- Media Publishers
- Reviews
- Web chats
The Post Carbon Reader
A must-read collection by some of the world’s most provocative thinkers on the key issues shaping our new century. Buy now and receive a 20% discount.







