Peak Oil is You

Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)

Page added on February 27, 2016

Bookmark and Share

No sign of Peak Oil


Nor, for that matter, of peak coal or gas. Fossil fuels, said to be on the path for an effective demise in the rich world later this century, will actually continue to fulfil the major part of our energy needs for the foreseeable future. So says the latest BP Energy Outlook. Gone is ‘Beyond Petroleum’, back comes making the most of what they do best, albeit in straightened times given the stubbornly low oil price. To be fair to BP, this has been their consistent story even through the period of what is often described as greenwashing. Since they know the business better than anyone and are broadly in line with the IEA and other key players, there is every reason to suppose their view is credible and realistic.

According to supporters of the concept, Peak Oil would see production capacity simply unable to meet demand, with the inevitable economic consequences. Having got used to oil at $100 a barrel, that would begin to look cheap. As the price escalated, minds would become concentrated on both saving energy overall and developing more economic alternatives. As ever, simple supply and demand would drive innovation.

But forecasters have got it wrong once again. As oil prices dropped steeply in 2014, the once-dominant OPEC producers kept the taps open, looking to maintain market share in the face of surging US competition, rather than cutting production to force prices up. However, the forecasters were wrong in this case as well. Rather than decimating the North American shale oil producers, the weaker ones went to the wall but many carried on pumping.

The costs of fracking (and re-fracking) and drilling multiple horizontal wells from a single well-head had come down to a point at which losses were bearable, albeit further drilling was discouraged. Breakeven cost for US oil in general is about $36 per barrel, although the average for shale is around $58 (see breakeven cost for top oil exporters). The figure for Saudi Arabia, in contrast, is just $9.90.

Nevertheless, the consequences of continuing low oil prices are worse for Middle Eastern countries and other ‘cheap’ oil producers because their economies are also heavily dependent on oil exports. So, while a single industrial sector may take a hammering in the USA, Saudi Arabia needs about $105/barrel to balance its budget (Fiscal breakeven cost for the top oil-dependent economies). For such countries, the economic and social costs could be severe, while shale oil production can be scaled back but then quickly revived when the market picks up.

On a more parochial note, plans in EU member states for continued expansion of renewable energy were based on a projected reducing need for subsidies as conventional energy prices rose steadily. Now, however, it begins to look as though subsidies will escalate for the foreseeable future. In the UK, for example, the realities of photovoltaics having very limited potential at such a high latitude and the building of more onshore wind farms meeting continued resistance from local communities has made offshore wind an increasingly attractive proposition politically.

Politically attractive maybe, but hardly so economically. As last week’s newsletter pointed out, offshore wind farm operators are being offered energy prices of at least £115 per MWh, over £20 more than the much-criticised strike price for electricity from the proposed Hinkley C nuclear plant ((Guaranteed) power to the people). Even these inflated prices, paid for by consumers, don’t take account of the additional costs of transmission, grid strengthening and conventional backup.

The result is a rethink of at least some aspects of the subsidy regime and a somewhat lukewarm attitude to renewables in the UK (although Germany seemingly is set to push ahead with yet more wind and solar, seemingly oblivious to the negative consequences of the policy instruments chosen: replacement of clean and flexible gas by new lignite stations). The much-vaunted prospects of carbon capture and storage (CCS), always just over the horizon and apparently destined to remain so, has had yet another false start as funding for a demonstration project has been pulled.

Even the renewable energy industry itself if not united. Power firm Drax urges biomass subsidy rethink puts the case for biomass being a more cost-effective option than other renewables, taking into account additional costs not normally included in the headline figures. The £105 per MWh paid to Drax for energy generated mainly from imported American wood pellets is certainly higher than the maximum of £82.50 paid for the latest onshore wind farms. However, an analysis conducted for the energy generator by NERA Economic Consulting and Imperial College argues that the overall cost to consumers of decarbonisation could be £2bn lower if biomass power stations were allowed to bid for new renewable energy contracts.

The precise figures can be criticised, but the thrust of the argument is undeniable: the only valid way of comparing competing technologies is to analyse the overall system cost. The Department of Energy and Climate Change is said to be looking into the use of whole system costing, with work due to finish shortly. According to energy minister Angela Leadsom, “Once this project is completed DECC will be able to better quantify system costs to inform policy decisions. Any future policy development, such as future renewable support, will be informed by the improved evidence base developed through this project”.

Let’s hope so. The wind and solar industries will doubtless put up strong resistance, because the higher-than-reported overall costs of their technologies is a secret they would rather was not made public. We can expect to hear much more of this kind of thing: “The additional costs of having variable generation on the system are low and for the most part renewable generators already pay these costs,” said Renewable UK’s director of policy, Dr Gordon Edge. “If we’re going to talk about system costs, then we also need to talk about the undoubted economic benefits that wind generators also bring,” he added.

What those ‘undoubted economic benefits may be to those other than the foreign-owned suppliers of wind turbines and photovoltaic panels, we wait to find out.

Martin Livermore

The Scientific Alliance

Cambridge Network

45 Comments on "No sign of Peak Oil"

  1. Harquebus on Sat, 27th Feb 2016 7:42 pm 

    The massive global debt bubble is the surest sign yet that we have reached peak oil. Without growth in oil production, there can not be economic growth.

    Debt was used to buy today’s oil yesterday. Facilitated by cheap credit, we are currently producing tomorrow’s oil today. Tomorrow’s oil, the last of the easy stuff, will have been depleted and the debts will not only have not been paid but, will have gotten bigger.

    Peak oil mates, peak oil. This is it. We are living it now. As I have stated previously, those that deny peak oil do not understand it.

  2. Plantagenet on Sat, 27th Feb 2016 8:48 pm 

    As long as global oil production continues to go up, we are not at peak oil.

    We’ll see a global peak in oil production sometime in the next 10 years, but we aren’t quite there yet.


  3. Harquebus on Sat, 27th Feb 2016 9:32 pm 

    Yeah but, oils ain’t necessarily oils.
    A lot of oil production is called oil but, it isn’t sold on the oil market so, it isn’t really oil.

  4. Truth Has A Liberal Bias on Sat, 27th Feb 2016 9:45 pm 

    Global oil production is down. July 2015 exceeds January 2016. And it will continue to decline as we go forward.

  5. Nony on Sat, 27th Feb 2016 9:50 pm 

    More people should read The Prize. Pulitzer-winning history by Yergin of oil through 1990. Knowing how 1986 went down makes it easy to see how 2014 went down.

    Peakers look stupid. TOD shut down for a reason, folks. Guys like Staniford are hiding from all the dumb things they said in the past. Suddenly no longer interested in amateur oil analysis…

  6. Apneaman on Sat, 27th Feb 2016 9:53 pm 

    Yergin’s a fuctard cheerleader and any prize can be bought.Pulitzer – Big fucking deal. Obama has a Nobel and drone bombs babies and their mommas daily.

  7. Apneaman on Sat, 27th Feb 2016 10:01 pm 

    Middle Eastern Wars Have ALWAYS Been about Oil

    “Robert Kennedy Jr. notes:

    For Americans to really understand what’s going on, it’s important to review some details about this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers — CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles — rebuffed Soviet treaty proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead, they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism — which Allen Dulles equated with communism — particularly when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies that they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism [and those that possess a lot of oil]. At a White House meeting between the CIA’s director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised the agency, “We should do everything possible to stress the ‘holy war’ aspect,” according to a memo recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster.”


  8. twocats on Sat, 27th Feb 2016 10:05 pm 

    Rising debt might be a sign of approaching peak oil – excess energy is diminishing and therefore unable to general excess capital production in society in order to pay interest and principal.

    But in and of itself Debt is not definitive. Even if the return on energy were between 1 and 0 (costs more input than you get out), which would result in ginormous debts, but we could still produce more total volume on a consistent basis, by the standard definition, no peakum oilum.

    Now, its been at least six years that many have suggested we need to change the definition of peak oil to mean: amount of Net Energy Available (from oil) to Society (nate hagens, et al). And from that perspective, we’ve almost certainly reached peak net available energy or peak oil.

    the question also about the different “liquids” going into the number is a solid question.

    Will any of these questions make a difference to the MSM or doubters on this site? No.

  9. Dooma on Sat, 27th Feb 2016 10:20 pm 

    Just to go off topic a bit..

    Why is it that geothermal rarely gets a mention when articles talk about “renewables”?

    To me it makes the most sense. I know that in certain geographical areas (like Australia), it costs an absolute fortune to drill deep enough to reach the high temperatures required to generate steam. Simply because we are smack bang in the centre of a tectonic plate.

    Surely though, the cost of drilling would easily be recouped by selling electricity to household consumers and industry.

    Where I live there are four major brown coal large (2000MW+) power stations. People who know their fossil fuels will know that brown coal is one of the dirtiest & largest CO2 emitting methods of producing electricity.

    A brown coal fired power station is 20% EFFICENT!

    That is totally unacceptable in the 21st century. The reason being because most of the heat (energy) loss is via the hyperbolic cooling towers.

    Geothermal is the one renewable where energy storage or weather conditions do not dictate it’s output. And it has the ability to provide BASELOAD power. Something that people often don’t think of..

    Compared to the price of commissioning a large-scale nuclear plant-including dealing with the waste generated, surely geothermal must have a similar EROEI?

  10. rockman on Sat, 27th Feb 2016 10:44 pm 

    Dooma – please don’t take offense but you should dig deeper into the complete DYNAMICS required for commercial geothermal to work. It takes much the a hole drilled into very hot rocks. Just consider the thousands of deep wells drilled in S La that encountered temps well above the boiling point…in same cases greater then 400F. In the late 70’s the Dept of Energy pumped many $millions (tax credits and direct grants) into efforts to use such wells. And it was a total failure. Just research how rarely all the necessary factors have come together to create the few commercial geothermal projects we have today.

    OTOH I do think we might be missing the opportunity to utilize low temperature geothermal. I’ll skip the details…you can search if interested. We can’t power a city with it but many hundreds of thousands of very small scale application might COLLECTIVELY generate many times more energy then produced by all the commercial projects we have today.

  11. rockman on Sat, 27th Feb 2016 10:53 pm 

    And again if folks keep allowing themselves to be baited into debates about PO dates and the silly position that supply won’t always meet demand (which it will thanks to the modulation effect of pricing) then the reality of the complexity of the Peak Oil Dynamic will be ignored.

    Just consider how few citizens don’t understand that the current low oil prices are a result of the diminishing capacity to develop meaningful new long term reserves.

  12. Dooma on Sat, 27th Feb 2016 10:56 pm 

    rockman, no offence taken. I understand what you are saying and realise that there is still a complete power station be built to spin those turbines with the steam.

    Maybe it is only viable (on a large scale) in countries like Iceland where the steam is basically coming straight out of the ground.

    I totally agree that it is already useful on a smaller scale, such as a heat pump for household use.

  13. Plantagenet on Sat, 27th Feb 2016 11:13 pm 

    Most people don’t realize that the largest geothermal development in the world is at the Geysers, just northeast of Napa Valley in California.


  14. Apneaman on Sat, 27th Feb 2016 11:34 pm 

    Planty, how do you know that “most people” don’t know that? Did you go around in your spare time asking “most people” if they knew that or did you just pull it from your ass like all your other retard assertions?

  15. meld on Sun, 28th Feb 2016 4:34 am 

    If we plant the whole world with biofuels then oil production will never go down. Hell we can plant biofuels on the moon and mars. I watched “The Martian” last night. He didn’t seem to have that much trouble!

  16. Dredd on Sun, 28th Feb 2016 4:49 am 

    Ghost-water is difficult to see too (The Ghost-Water Constant – 4).

  17. shortonoil on Sun, 28th Feb 2016 7:07 am 

    “Breakeven cost for US oil in general is about $36 per barrel, although the average for shale is around $58 (see breakeven cost for top oil exporters). The figure for Saudi Arabia, in contrast, is just $9.90.”

    Crude stayed in the $100 range for almost four years. According to the quote above the industry was making incredible profits during that period; so incredible that one would have to be an absolute idiot to believe it? At $36 the profit margin on gross sales would have been 278%. On $58 it would have been 172%, and on $9.90 it would have been 1010%.

    That very easily explains how the Shale industry managed to accumulate over a $1 trillion in debt to build annual sales of $360 billion. A 172% profit margin on gross sales will do that using a combination of the New Math, and some very creative accounting. These guys are quoting EBITDA numbers, not break even numbers. Of course, they think they have enough stupid, credulous readers that they can get away with it.

    Put it in print, and someone is dumb enough to believe it!

  18. diemos on Sun, 28th Feb 2016 8:38 am 

    Here you go Dooma, all the basic physics behind why geothermal is not going to save industrial civilization.

  19. eugene on Sun, 28th Feb 2016 9:31 am 

    Another of the endless debates amongst people with little or no knowledge of the energy situation but lots of opinions with each convinced their opinion is absolutely the correct one. I’d add mine but I’m just an old man sitting in the woods with an “opinion” based on very limited knowledge. One thing I do “know”, oil is vital to our lifestyle and is a finite resource of which we have extracted most of the cheap, easy stuff so will have to produce ever more expensive stuff. I like the word “stuff” as it appears to me the definition of oil is changing according to the agenda of the person speaking.

  20. rockman on Sun, 28th Feb 2016 10:02 am 

    Dooma – I didn’t check the link above…hopefully it helps. But no: the primary limitations are not above ground: heat exchange systems are well known. The unique conditions needed are all below ground…essentially the geology.

    Check out The Geysers website if interested in more details. It does a fair job of explaining the water et al requirements. Likewise Iceland’s great geothermal efforts are the result of much more then just sitting on some hot rocks. LOL.

    BTW I once worked for the company that owned The Geysers at the time. I wasn’t involved in the project but did get a tour.

  21. ennui2 on Sun, 28th Feb 2016 10:52 am 

    The comments under the news are a great snapshot of where we are with peak-dom.

    The top rebuttal to hearing information peakers don’t like is an ad hom, which is a non-rebuttal.

    In other words, it’s a glut. Face it.

  22. onlooker on Sun, 28th Feb 2016 11:21 am 

    “Just consider how few citizens don’t understand that the current low oil prices are a result of the diminishing capacity to develop meaningful new long term reserves.” But some even here say it is a glut. Hahaha. Funny isn’t Rockman. Oh and for those who may not know Rockman is in the Oil business he is not just some armchair pundit.

  23. shortonoil on Sun, 28th Feb 2016 11:49 am 

    When the world is burning 32 Gb per year, and discovering 4Gb to replace the 32 it just used, you apparently have a “glut”. Is that the result of how you use your Facebook account? Maybe its a Twitter brain thing?

  24. onlooker on Sun, 28th Feb 2016 12:09 pm 

    Short thanks. Another person in the trenches. Not some denier, BAU cheerleader or shill. Because they are the only ones harping on how Shale/Tar will bring about a revolution of new energy. Of those 4Gb, I wonder now much of that per year we will even be able to bring to market. I think depletion and the fizziling out of LTO will make in short term a mockery of the so called glut and its advocates.

  25. Anonymous on Sun, 28th Feb 2016 2:01 pm 

    Despite the credible sounding org this article is attached to, the author is clearly drawing money from big oil trough. Hes defending NUCLEAR ffs, and then has the balls to claim wind\solar dirty secret is its ‘high cost’. That takes either plant-level ignorance, or someone is paying him to say it.

    Basically a over-long screed against renerables is all this farticle is. I see little ‘science’ in this farticle, its basically a heavily slanted and biased op-ed.

  26. JuanP on Sun, 28th Feb 2016 2:12 pm 

    Russian oil production is at post soviet peak.

  27. Apneaman on Sun, 28th Feb 2016 2:26 pm 

    Cambridge Network

    “The Cambridge Network is a commercial business networking organisation for business people and academics[1][2] working in technology fields in the Cambridge area of the UK.”

    The organisation’s mission is “We raise the game for business in Cambridge, and through that we try to raise the game for economic growth in the UK.”

  28. rockman on Sun, 28th Feb 2016 2:43 pm 

    Looker – I wish I didn’t have to result to an worn anology but it works so perfectly: the blind men trying to ID an elephant by each analyzing individual parts of the critter. PO (or more correctly the POD…peak oil dynamic) is more than the date of global max oil production, storage volumes at Cushing, KSA production levels, debt incurred by the US shale players, frac’ng costs, US oil exports, a lot of dilbit made with Eagle Ford condensate, etc, etc, etc. It’s no different the arguing that critter is a snake because only it’s trunk has been analyzed. We see the same approach here: PO isn’t a factors because we see XXX or PO is the end of life as we know it because YYY is happening.

    Some don’t like the POD because it’s to inclusive. Which is the same as saying we shouldn’t study the entire anatomy of the elephant in order to ID it because that data is “too inclusive”. As I’ve stated before: the oil price spike which lead to the shale boom which led to increased US oil production while cooling the global economy and leading to consumers who were unable/unwilling to pay more the $40 per bbl which led to a drastic decline of shale rigs and a slew of oil companies pushed to and over the brink of failure: collectively these events along with others indicate to true nature of the PO dynamic. At this point if one can’t grasp the entire picture I doubt they ever will.

    IOW it’s a f*cking elephant. LOL.

  29. onlooker on Sun, 28th Feb 2016 2:58 pm 

    Thanks for the clear explanation of recent peak oil dynamics Rock. I being a layman have tried to understand what is going on relative to PO and other matters affecting the planet as the least we can do is know what the heck is really going on in the world we live. Now if they still don’t understand then they are dense or have an agenda.

  30. shortonoil on Sun, 28th Feb 2016 3:17 pm 

    “Short thanks. Another person in the trenches.”

    When oil is selling for below its full life cycle production cost; when the industry’s revenue has fallen by $2.3 trillion per year in the last two years; when the Saudis are borrowing money to pay their bills; when the nation with the largest petroleum resource on the planet can’t afford toilet paper for its citizens; when hundreds of US producers are going out of business; when the world is using petroleum eight times faster than it is finding it; when the Etp Model said that this was going to happen years ago —– yep, I believe it.

    It’s not that hard to get your head wrapped around, unless your head is made out of concrete.

  31. rockman on Sun, 28th Feb 2016 3:36 pm 

    Hmm…the “top rebuttal” is ad hom? Perhaps the Rockman overestimates his contributions to the “PO debate. Never resorts to personal attacks preferring to just let FACTUAL DATA make the point.

    It is interesting to note that criticizing peakers for responding with personal attacks is done in the form of a personal attack on them as opposed to just providing FACTS to support one’s anti-PO position.

    Kettle calling pot black? LOL.

  32. Anonymous on Sun, 28th Feb 2016 3:37 pm 

    That was my point Ape

    The word ‘Cambridge’ is intended to be associated with Cambridge University. Thus=Academic, credible source.

    And ‘Science’ of course, is pretty self explanatory. It is there to reinforce the ‘Cambridge’ association.

    Sort of doubling up on the implications that this source is a credible, rational, impartical scientific org. (LOL). And not,(its hopeed) as you point out, basically, a high sounding cheerleader for UK commercial energy corporations. And others I am sure…

  33. makati1 on Sun, 28th Feb 2016 7:01 pm 

    Recent signs of oil’s peak…

    “Global Trade Is Collapsing—-Chinese Exports To Brazil Down 60% In January Y/Y; All Containerized Shipments To LatAm Down 50%”
    “Bond Vigilantes Push $258 Billion of Oil Debt Past Junk”
    “Halliburton to cut 5,000 jobs in new round of layoffs”
    “Slashing Start for European Energy Sector”
    “Apache Slashes 2016 Budget By More Than Half, Sees Lower Output”
    “World outside US and Canada doesn’t produce more crude oil than in 2005”
    “Shale Oil Architect Predicts Doom for Some Drillers Amid Slump”
    “UK Oil Industry At The “Edge Of A Chasm”
    “Mansion sales and discount dining: oil rout hits Houston’s rich”
    “Watch Five Years of Oil Drilling Collapse in Seconds”

    And for chuckles:
    ” Former Mexican President To Donald Trump: ‘I’m Not Gonna Pay For That [Expletive] Wall,’ Vicente Fox Says”
    “Clinton Defends Ongoing Anarchy In Libya: We Are Still In Korea, We Are Still In Germany”

  34. peakyeast on Mon, 29th Feb 2016 6:55 am 

    For me the sign of the peak is the extraction itself of deep water, arctic, and shale/tarsands.

    It means the good and easy stuff is gone.

  35. rockman on Mon, 29th Feb 2016 7:06 am 

    Looker – You might not be in the oil biz but I’m sure your life has its fair share of dynamic systems at play. Can you argue any part of your life by focusing on just one aspect? Like how far you travel to work determines what job you’ll take? Or what college your child might attend based upon its student population? Where you live or what school is chosen is based upon multiple factors. factors which are neither unique to you nor are they static over time.

    So why would some folks like to narrow down the discussion of a system as complex as the global production and consumption of energy? I think often the answer is that trying to put a fully comprehensive narrative together is too daunting a task for most. Much easier to pick one or two aspects and continuously debate them in a vacuum.

    It even isn’t easy for the all powerful Rockman…I mean Oz…to do so. LOL.

  36. onlooker on Mon, 29th Feb 2016 7:17 am 

    Yes Rock, I think it is partly a level of ignorance but it is also at another level one of cherry picking or choosing a convenient data point. One can usually in the most negative of data find something positive and vice-versa. I would not criticize anyone for not grasping fully some concept. I would though criticize them if I detect some level of wishful thinking. All these subjects are tough because we are discussing the slow unraveling of our societies but the least we can do is be honest with the facts.

  37. Dooma on Mon, 29th Feb 2016 7:27 am 

    diemos, many thanks for the link to one man’s excellent explanation of geothermal and limitations it faces as a energy source. A very interesting blog as well.

  38. rockman on Mon, 29th Feb 2016 7:28 am 

    yeastie – I get your point. But back to the POD: the shales, from the perspective of the Rockman, were one of the easiest oil plays he has ever seen developed in his 4 decades. Don’t mean to take a shot at my fellow geologists but there really wasn’t a lot of geology involved: you took leases and drilled a well based upon the fact that you could lease that acreage.

    This is the real reason the play grew so fast: everyone knew exactly where the Eagle Ford and Bakken targets were based upon tens of thousands of vertical wells drilled over the last 50+ years. Maybe some don’t realize that the Sagle Ford shale had already been penetrated and mapped by many thousands of such vertical wells drilled in the heart of the play. Granted some techno-tweaking was needed for frac’ng but 95% of that tech had already been developed long before the shales got hot.

    A very experienced and productive exploration team might get 2 or 3 new conventional wells drilled per year. But some of the shale teams got 10 or 20 wells drilled per year. So no, production from the shales is actually very easy oil. But it is very expensive to develop. So how difficult was it to afford the capex to develop the shales? Heck, that was easier than the geology once oil got above $90//bbl. Investors and money lenders couldn’t write checks fast enough. LOL. The hz drilling and frac tech had been well developed long before the shales kicked in. Everyone was just waiting for the price of oil to get high enough.

    With that you might understand why the Rockman views the US shale production surge as THE easiest play he’s seen developed since he started in the biz in 1975: many thousands of pre-identified drilling locations and beaucoup $’s. It was really f*cking easy oil. And now it ain’t. LOL

  39. Dooma on Mon, 29th Feb 2016 7:48 am 

    peakyeast, you read my mind verbatim.

    Poisoning potable water (I thought) is a tactic associated with warfare?

    Peak oil or peak water-which will come first?

  40. tita on Mon, 29th Feb 2016 8:05 am 

    Well, there is quite a lot of movements in alternative energy projects and efficiency. These are the signs that we struggle quite a lot against the natural depletion of conventional oil (which some call peak oil). Shale oil is just one of the alternative. It’s quite new, and we have to wait some time now to see the worth of it.
    Signs have been there for 45 years, and won’t disappear.

  41. ERRATA on Mon, 29th Feb 2016 10:59 am 

    Perhaps it is only a temporary overload of the Internet.

    I think it is worth remembering about this chart:

  42. Alpha9 on Mon, 29th Feb 2016 11:44 am 

    Must be the last idiot who doesn’t know the definition of “oil” has changed and we have peaked already.

  43. Banjo on Mon, 29th Feb 2016 1:43 pm 

    The ratcheting down analogy of Richard Heinberg is an apt description.

    We have had ultra low interest rates that have supported fracking and massive government borrowing and the economy is still not moving.

    Too many people think only of price of oil not a declining economy as a feedback loop.

  44. joe on Mon, 29th Feb 2016 3:37 pm 

    The switch to tight oil, slump of global growth and opec on its knees, not a sign of peak oil?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *