I just read the article, and I'm impressed. He has the same attitude of an Englishman told he's got an incurable disease. "If there's no remedy, why fret?"

"Imagine what a "celebrity" he could be now with peak oil getting quite a hearing on the Internetss?"

Hit the nail right on the head bro...

From Sharon the bigot to Matt the shill.

We all wanna be "Peak Oil Stars"

Excellent!!

Not related.

The "oil crisis" to which you refer was an oil embargo levied by OPEC because Nixon finally relented and released satellite and aerial recon photos to the Israelis in the 1973 war.

Those photos provided the locations of the Egyptian ADA net and were critical. It allowed, I think Moshe Dyan, to lead paratroops (as infantry not airborne) into the Egyptian rear area and destroy the air defense command and control network. Israeli air losses were at a ratio of 3:2 at the time, and Israeli armor was getting pounded with losses of 2:3 (they were losing 3 tanks for every two they destroyed). Once the ADA net was gone, Isaeli aircraft were able to target Egyptian anti-armor units and stop the losses long enough to mount a counter-offensive.



Not related.

The USSR had serious economic problems starting in the early 1970s. Gorbachev, as head of the 1st Directorate before becoming KGB director, was hugely successful in recruiting spies in the US FBI, CIA and military branches. Those spies helped the KGB to identify US and western spies in the USSR who were executed, removed, or kept in place and given false information to pass to the US, which blinded the US to the economic morass that was affecting the USSR.

The political turmoil from the successions of Brezhnev, Andropov and Chernenko (2 of the 3 were most likely assassinated), then Gorbachev, didn't help matters. The actions taken by Gorbachev and Yeltsin accelerated the demise of the USSR, not delayed it.



Not related.

The shah announced to Sullivan (US ambassador to Iran) his intent to abdicate for health reasons (cancer) and sought visas for he and his family to enter the US. Sullivan unwisely used British and French contacts to establish a dialogue with Khomeini who was in exile in Paris. When the French discovered that the purpose of the dialogue was to recruit Khomeini to replace the shah, the French leaked that info to their agents at a mosque in Tabriz, because they wanted their man another ayatollah whose name escapes me, to gain power in Iran, which would effectively increase French influence and hegemony in the region. Within hours the country broke down in revolution.

Despite the pleas of Sullivan and Al Haig (Army CofS) to bring Khomeini in, Carter stupidly sent General Hugyens to Iran to convince the Iranian military to take over the country. That led Khomeini to believe that the US was attempting to double-cross him and set him up for assassination. It went downhill from there.

The shah never got a US visa. Carter told him to bite the big one. Eventually, Egypt had pity on the shah and granted him a visa, and that's where he died.

Faisal. Qasim. Saddam. Massadeq. Pahlavi. Bhutto. Don't think for a moment the point isn't lost on the leaders of the current autocratic regimes in the Middle East.



Not related.

That was George Soros and a few others who orchestrated that, then Clinton quite happily rammed the Washington Consensus down their throats.



Not related.

US troops from VII Corps based in Germany had already been conducting desert warfare training in the Turkish desert on the border of Iraq since late 1988, before Iraqi oil "peaked," and they continued to train in preparation for the invasion of Iraq right up through the spring of 1990.

Given the outstanding performance of those units during the Gulf War, I'd say the training paid off.



It's coincidence. There's no cause and effect relationship.

I must say I'm not impressed at all. When demand exceeds supply, a shortage exists. I don't see any evidence of shortages anywhere on the planet.

Shortages also create bidding wars as countries attempt to ensure they maintain adequate supply. There would be massive swapping of futures contracts if that were the situation. You wouldn't even be able to keep track of a futures contract it'd change hands so many times so quickly.

2017 to 2024 is still the best date range.

Or, some countries are just flat priced out of the oil game, leaving their consumption to be gobbled up by those who can still afford it.

Oil production has not increased since July 2006. That's the peak so far. Will we exceed it? Boone Pickens says no. We will soon see.

Even the mega projects database says we will, we have something like over 5m barrels per day additional capacity coming online between now and 2010. So yes, as long as there are no delays, we will hit close to 90m by 2010.

I think delays are part and parcel of the oil business, so that's a very optimistic prediction. However, the declining oil fields may be declining faster than the optimists thought. If so, that 5m new capacity is unlikely to be additional, more likely at replacement level only. According to EIA figures, we've been bumping along on the plateau for a couple of years now and production was below consumption last year (with stocks filling the gap). I haven't seen significant gains in production this year so, as Monte said, we could well know quite soon if peak has happened.

I haven't had a look at the database myself but just what I've read Chris Skrebowski saying. In his 2006 estimate he predicted peak in 2010 at 87.92 for crude+NGL with all liquids peak soon after at over 90m. I wouldn't consider him an optimist either.

Much of what I read on this issue says new production is only going to cover 60% of projected decline. I think the decline will be steeper than the rosy projections.

Why?

They are rosy. That, and the decline rates we are seeing from the big fields like Cantarell at 14.5%.

And, I think demand will be greater than projections.

That has been the track record.

Bottom line; we don't know what the decline rate will be, so we are just guessing and gambling.

Very bad gamble.