Peak Oil is You

Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)

Page added on August 25, 2015

Bookmark and Share

Jean Laherrere’s Bakken Update

Jean Laherrere’s Bakken Update thumbnail

Jean Laherrere sent me the below charts the other day. I had planned on posting them with more Bakken data. But my schedule has been busy so I am posting them alone.

Jean’s interpretation for ND is as follows
Bakken ultimate = 3 Gb
Non Bakken ultimate = 2.2 Gb
ND ultimate 5.2 Gb
Quite symmetrical like the EIA drilling productivity data, but in contrary to EIA/AEO2015 with a peak in 2020
It will be interesting to see the evolution in the next few months

Jean 1

The Hubbert Linearization puts the Bakken about half way to the end.

Jean 2

The rest of North Dakota, less the Bakken, is just about finished.

Jean 3

With this chart Jean puts North Dakota production right at the peak.

Jean 4

This is a 20 year time scale of the 90 year time scale chart above it.

Jean 5

Total shale production including the Permian which has almost half conventional production.

Last post I linked to John Mauldin’s column and also a link to James Howard Kunstler’s take on Mauldin’s post. Well here is Art Berman’s take on Mauldin’s column:

John Mauldin Defends The Faith, Fails Economics 101

John Mauldin defends the faith of what he calls the “fracking gospel” but fails Economics 101.

In his recent post “Riding the Energy Wave to the Future”, he claims that oil prices are falling because the cost of producing tight oil is cheaper than most conventional oil.

But oil is $40 per barrel and falling because it is being devalued by global market forces that have little to do with tight oil at this point.

Mauldin’s evidence that producers are making money at $40 oil?

“I have friends,” he says, “here in Dallas who are raising money for wells that can do better than break even at $40 per barrel.”

I have friends at oil companies here in Houston who assure me that they are losing their shirts at $40 per barrel.

There is a lot more of Art’s opinion along with charts. Be sure to check it out.

And on another subject. The following is Chapter 4 of Tumbling Tide, link below. I thought it interesting as it differs considerably from the opinions of some of the posters on this list. I hope we can get some comments on the probability of alternative energy replacing fossil fuels.

The words below are not mine but those of the author, Peter Goodchild. But I do agree with him.

Tumbling Tide: Population, Petroleum, and Systemic Collapse

Chapter 4: Alternative Energy

Alternative sources of energy will never be very useful for several reasons, but mainly because of a problem of “net energy”: the amount of energy output is not sufficiently greater than the amount of energy input (Gever, Kaufmann, & Skole, 1991). With the problematic exception of uranium, alternative sources ultimately don’t have enough “bang” to replace the 30 billion barrels of oil we use annually—or even to replace more than the tiniest fraction of that amount.

At the same time, alternative forms of energy are so dependent on the very petroleum that they are intended to replace that the use of them is largely self-defeating and irrational. Petroleum is required to produce, process, and transport almost any other form of energy; a coal mine is not operated by coal-powered equipment. It takes “oil energy” to make “alternative energy.” Alternative energy, in other words, is always riding on the back of a vast fossil-fuel civilization.

The use of unconventional oil (shale deposits, tar sands, heavy oil) poses several problems besides that of net energy. Large quantities of natural gas and water are needed to process the oil from these unconventional sources. The pollution problems are considerable, and it is not certain how much environmental damage the human race is willing to endure. With unconventional oil we are, almost literally, scraping the bottom of the barrel.

More exotic forms of alternative energy are plagued with even greater problems (Youngquist, 2000, October). Fuel cells cannot be made practical because such devices require hydrogen obtained by the use of fossil fuels (coal or natural gas), if we exclude designs that will never escape the realm of science fiction; if fuel cells ever became popular, the fossil fuels they require would be consumed even faster than they are now.

Biomass energy (from corn or wood, for example) requires impossibly large amounts of land and still results in insufficient quantities of net energy, perhaps even negative quantities. Wind and geothermal power are only effective in certain areas and for certain purposes. Hydroelectric dams are reaching their practical limits. Nuclear power will soon be suffering from a lack of fuel and is already creating serious environmental dangers
The current favorite for alternative energy is solar power, but it has no practicality on a large scale. There is a great deal of solar energy reaching the Earth, but it is too diffused to be of much value. A good analogy to that diffusiveness, and in fact a somewhat related problem, is that metals have been of use to humankind only because they were found in concentrated deposits.

Proponents of solar energy must therefore close their eyes to all questions of scale. The world’s deserts have an area of 36 million square kilometers, and the solar energy they receive annually is 300,000 exajoules (EJ), which is a typical 11 percent electrical-conversion rate would result in 33,000 EJ (Kines, 2006). Annual global energy consumption in 2005 was approximately 500 EJ. To meet the world’s present energy needs by using thermal solar power, then, we would need an array (or an equivalent number of smaller ones) with a size of 500/33,000 x 36 million square kilometers, which is about 550,000 square kilometers—a machine the size of France. The production and maintenance of this array would require vast quantities of hydrocarbons, metals, and other materials—a self-defeating process. Solar power will therefore do little to solve the world’s energy problems.

The quest for alternative sources of energy is not merely illusory; it is actually harmful. By daydreaming of a noiseless and odorless utopia of windmills and solar panels, we are reducing the effectiveness of whatever serious information is now being published. When news articles claim that there are simply painless solutions to the oil crisis, the reader’s response in not awareness but drowsiness. We are rapidly heading toward the greatest disaster in history, but we are indulging in escapist fantasies. All talk of alternative energy is just a way of evading the real issue: that the Industrial Age is over.

Petroleum, unfortunately, is the perfect fuel and nothing else ever comes close. The problem with the various flying pigs of alternative energy (as in “when pigs can fly”) is not that we have to wait for scientists to perfect the technology the problem is that the pig idea is not a good one in the first place. To maintain an industrial civilization, it’s either oil or nothing.

peak oil barrel

40 Comments on "Jean Laherrere’s Bakken Update"

  1. rockman on Tue, 25th Aug 2015 8:43 am 

    Folks still raising money to drill shale wells? OK…perhaps so. But raising money to drill isn’t the same as drilling productive wells (let alone profitable wells). Remember my story of the company that raised $millions to drill 18 conventtional wildcats in the last boom. And then drilled 18 drill holes…didn’t produce $1 worth of oil/NG. And the two senior guys retired millionaires. There are a number of ways to make a good living in the oil patch that don’t require finding oil/NG.

  2. Thomas on Tue, 25th Aug 2015 9:52 am 

    Alternative Energy: “the amount of energy output is not sufficiently greater than the amount of energy input (Gever, Kaufmann, & Skole, 1991)”

    OMG! Jean seams to fallen out of time. Today even the most fanatic fossil energy fanboy knows that this is absolutely bullshit.

    The truth is: net energy output of solar and wind is far times higher (factor 20 to 40) than that of shale oil (factor 2-5)!

    In addition, we do not need to replace primary energy (Oil, Gas, …) with the same amount of electrical energy (wind, solar) thanks to electric vehicles, heat pumps and energy efficiency (insulation etc).

  3. Kenz300 on Tue, 25th Aug 2015 10:16 am 

    Wind and solar are the future…. fossil fuels are the past….

    Solar Beats Gas in Colorado – Renewable Energy World

  4. MSN Fanboy on Tue, 25th Aug 2015 10:44 am 

    Nice to know the cornies are still deluded. Thanks Thomas.

    And kenz, why not paste the same outdated messaGE FOR THE NEXT SEVEN YEARS… OH WAIT IM SURE YOU WILL.

  5. BobInget on Tue, 25th Aug 2015 11:03 am 

    ” production and maintenance of this array would require vast quantities of hydrocarbons, metals, and other materials—a self-defeating process. Solar power will therefore do little to solve the world’s energy problems”.

    How about a million solar roof-tops?

    We need to begin thinking in-situ power generation. Large and small apartment, retail,
    manufacturing complexes. From cop shop to
    the beauty salon, solar power no longer needs to prove itself over and over. Like same sex marriage, what ever your thoughts, solar ain’t going away. Just adapt.

  6. jjhman on Tue, 25th Aug 2015 11:37 am 

    Someone is still using Hubbert Linerization to predict the future? LOL
    Look at Laherrere’s second graph. You can predict three entirely different answers from that graph, each one a large multiple of the previous. OK, its a finite world but we need better conjurors to know when the EOTWAWKI is going to arrive.

  7. Truth Has A Liberal Bias on Tue, 25th Aug 2015 11:38 am 

    Right on! Rockman has figured out that America can be awesome forever and all we gotta do is drill dry holes! Sign me up!! What a fool.

  8. shortonoil on Tue, 25th Aug 2015 12:01 pm 

    “ND ultimate 5.2 Gb”

    North Dakota produces some of the most expensive oil in the world. WTI is now $39.40/ barrel. Two years ago when WTI was $ 97/ barrel most, if not all, of these shale operators were losing money on their full life cycle production costs. The shale industry amassed over $1 trillion in debt to expand an industry that produced $360 billion annually in product. The industry would have had to been generating a 25% profit margin on gross sales just to pay back the principal borrowed before these high decline rate wells fell to stripper status. They weren’t!

    Oil that can not be economically retrieved is classified as resources, not reserves. At $39.40/ barrel there are no reserves in North Dakota; just possibly a little more debt accumulation. At $39.40/ barrel barrel these operators aren’t taking out oil, they are taking out loans!

  9. BC on Tue, 25th Aug 2015 12:05 pm 

    Drilling dry holes in America. Hmmm …? There has to be some puns there somewhere for the US and the West in terms of demographics, oil depletion per capita, lack of growth of real GDP per capita, Viagra, and “female Viagra”.

    With lots of women on “female Viagra”, are there going to be millions of women wanting the McMansion, Range Rover, unlimited credit card, AND SEX?!

    The country is finished. 😀

    In the meantime, to make some money before a collapse, perhaps it’s time to start an upscale male escort service or brothels for upper-income women. Anyone want to invest? 😀

  10. BC on Tue, 25th Aug 2015 12:09 pm 

    @short: “Oil that can not be economically retrieved is classified as resources, not reserves. At $39.40/ barrel there are no reserves in North Dakota; just possibly a little more debt accumulation. At $39.40/ barrel barrel these operators aren’t taking out oil, they are taking out loans!”

    Say Amen, brother!

    They “reserves” the right to borrow and make no profit for as long as possible before a crash.

    Hey, that sounds like Amazon and many of the Social Mania and biobubbletech companies, some of the latter with no “revenues”. LOL!!!

    Not-for-profit business is BOOMING! 😀

  11. BC on Tue, 25th Aug 2015 12:12 pm 

    @jjhman: “Someone is still using Hubbert Linerization to predict the future? LOL”

    Adjust the data for population and the log-linear depletion regime has been inexorable for 40-45 years.

    Peak Oil per capita is in the rear view mirror a decade behind us for the world and a working lifetime ago for the US.

  12. green_achers on Tue, 25th Aug 2015 12:36 pm 

    “Alternative sources of energy will never be very useful…”

    Bunk. If your only metric for “useful” is “keep the joys of industrial overshoot going as long as possible,” then you’re not relevant to the reality of the situation anyway. Alt energy, done right, could save a lot of misery in the transition, and at any rate, is going to be very important to the survivors.

  13. BC on Tue, 25th Aug 2015 1:38 pm 

    green_achers: I think it comes down to scaling up, which I don’t think the current system and oil depletion regime per capita will permit AND simultaneously permit continuing growth of real GDP per capita (~0%/yr. in the US, UK, EZ, and Japan since 2007-08) AND maintaining the fossil fuel infrastructure indefinitely hereafter.

    Moreover, I don’t see “the market” having the incentives nor the capacity to permit scaling up of renewables to anywhere near the necessary level.

    Because of these factors (there are many other impediments, but I’ll spare you), a full transitional scenario probably eventually require a kind of Manhattan Project-like, centralized command-and-control effort that includes aspects such as outlawing autos for most population centers;

    tax highly progressively land resource rents and embedded net energy consumption per capita/household, and eliminate taxes on labor, production, savings, and capital accumulation;

    end the auto-, oil-, and suburban housing-based economic model;

    reduce work hours and commuting miles to and from paid employment (in net energy terms, we have OVEREMPLOYMENT at low pay and no productivity and WAAAAAAAAAY too much waste and inefficiency that we cannot afford);

    replace most freeways for passenger cars with high-speed electric rail;

    phase in a basic income guarantee (BIG) for the bottom 80-90% to replace all social-welfare transfer programs and the bureaucracies that run them, requiring some form of public service in exchange for the BIG;

    immigration and growth of the birth rate must cease for at least a generation; and

    forgive most private household debt and eliminate fractional reserve banking and fiat digital debt-money, replacing it with 100% reserved fiat digital net energy-based credits.

    That’s a short list of things I think are necessary for a successful transition to a renewables-based economy and society, but they will have virtually ZERO support from the rentier Power Elite top 0.001%, the Establishment intellectuals, CEO caste, bankster oligarchs, Wall St. predators, and the pickup- and SUV-drivin’ John Q. public.

    Therefore, while I am an enthusiastic advocate, this is among many other reasons why I do not anticipate a successful Hubbert-like transition to a steady-state solar economy*** via renewables in the decades ahead.


    1. We will never again be able to get sufficient growth of the economy to eliminate or even markedly reduced unemployment. NAFTA, GATT, and Clinton’s hope of growing the economy to solve unemployment is doomed to failure.

    2. The promise of competing in the global economy is a hoax perpetrated upon the working and unemployed people of this country because over time a nation needs to buy and sell overseas in roughly equivalent amounts.

    3. All attempts to reduce the deficit, balance the budget or pay off the national debt are futile. The deficit and the national debt represent the subsidy the government has paid in its attempt to keep growth and unemployment at the level of social tolerance.

    4. The steady state economy into which we are being inexorably forced implies an interest rate of zero.

    5. An interest rate of zero (as Hubbert explains) means the end of the money system. We are being forced to completely rethink our cultural ideas about how to organize our economy and distribute purchasing power.

    6. Increasingly desperate means will be used by those who think we can continue to have business as usual.

    7. The proposals of Negative Population Growth should be implemented immediately.

  14. Nony on Tue, 25th Aug 2015 1:46 pm 

    So much wrong.

    1. Hubbert linearization has bad history and arbitrary (capricious) endpoint selections.

    2. No good reason to make post 2011 a different population from 2008-2011.

    3. Ironic that he has NO accounting for price and that he has the field turning right now. Does anyone think we would be turning now if price had remained 100+?

    4. No geological insight. Ignores the work done by USGS to characterize the resource.

  15. ghung on Tue, 25th Aug 2015 1:48 pm 

    There’s so much wrong with the “Chapter 4” section, above (regarding renewables) I’m not sure it’s worth responding to. It’s largely propaganda. The claim: “Alternative sources of energy will never be very useful for several reasons….” is, at face value, false. PV and wind have proven to be exceptionally useful for many purposes.

    Regarding net energy, lets do a quick exercise from the real world. Our first three 75 watt panels have been in constant use for over 20 years. Back when they were being used to charge batteries for my RV (home while I built the house), I calculated that each panel had an average production of just over 225 watt hours per day over a two year period (measured with a Trace C40 DVM for cumulative production). Just to be conservative, we’ll cut that back to 150 watt hours/day for the doubters). So, 150 watt hour per day times 365 days/year times 20 years comes to (if my math is correct) 1,095,000 watt hours, or 1.095 MwH, in an area that receives over 65 inches of rainfall annually. Does anyone think it really took over a megawatt hour of energy to build a single 75 watt PV panel? Really? Even in 1994? Of course, production of PV panels has become much more efficient over the last twenty years, and their conversion efficiency has improved significantly. Maintenance? Negligible.

    Balance of system embedded energy? All sources of electrical power have that, as do fossil energy systems, often with far higher maintenance costs, and ongoing inputs which are effectively infinitely higher than a solar panel (essentially zero, that).

    These articles are idiotic. While there’s little doubt that alternatives will never meet current energy consumption levels, that’s largely due to human economic/consumption behavior; not the technology.

    While know Sunweb or others will likely give us their usual rants regarding the life-cycle of alternatives’ production and use, they generally avoid addressing the comparative issues. This isn’t about which energy source is perfect, but about which is less imperfect for a world facing severe energy and environmental predicaments. Nothing they’ve ever presented has shown me that my choice to live with renewable energy isn’t the better choice, and will likely continue to become an even better choice. Unlike many detractors, at least I have a plan. Just saying we’re fucked isn’t part of that plan.

  16. idontknowmyself on Tue, 25th Aug 2015 1:58 pm 

    ghung gets energy balance and how to use it to justify current choice. Shale oil can be extract if we have no other choice and survival of humans depends on it.

    It can be extracted as long as we cut some energy somewhere and use that energy for shale oil extraction.

    Very soon money and debt will be of no concerns as the human specie will fight for survival. Debt will be give to shale oil producers and shale oil extraction will continue. Stop manufacturing Ipad and other electronics stuff, and you will find that we have some energy left to extract shale oil.

    The human specie wont allow the shutdown of international just because of debt.

  17. Truth Has A Liberal Bias on Tue, 25th Aug 2015 2:11 pm 


    Let me know when you think they’re using renewables to make renewables. When they’re using solar power to make solar panels put up a link. When oils gone renewables will be gone shortly there after. Try setting up wind turbines without steel.

  18. idontknowmyself on Tue, 25th Aug 2015 2:29 pm 

    It is not about solving energy world problem, it is about finding a way to transition to high consumption energy society to a low consumption energy society with the less possible societal chaos.

    In that case, solar and nuclear energy could have their place and a energy balance equation seems to make a case for it depending of the scale. I thought that was so obvious, apparently not.

  19. jjhman on Tue, 25th Aug 2015 3:19 pm 


    I don’t think anyone seriously thinks oil will ever be “gone” so your argument doesn’t make sense. If solar panels make net positive energy they can be used to make solar panels and rockets to the moon if necessary (or even desired). No doubt, like everything else, they will cost more without petroleum but that’s a different story line.

  20. Bob Owens on Tue, 25th Aug 2015 3:26 pm 

    No matter what anyone may think, at the end of the day solar/wind will be all we will have. What will it cost? What is the EROEI? We will need all the solar/wind we can get so let’s get a move on. Will it support our current world? Absolutely not, but it beats the heck out of chopping wood and carrying it on our heads for miles to cook up a squirrel for dinner.

  21. shortonoil on Tue, 25th Aug 2015 3:27 pm 

    The problems that have faced humanity for millennium have been pumping water, having lights after dark to continue doing productive work; having some kind of communications that move faster than a horse. Renewables can do those things; it can’t run Shopping Malls, it can’t send 320 million people speeding up, and down the road all day, and it can’t power a modern 500 bed hospital. They can however keep a lot of people alive. As long as we don’t lose the knowledge that we have gained over the last several centuries something will remain. It is now up to each individual to preserve as much of what we have gained as possible. If we don’t we are doomed; if you don’t want to do that find a good high bridge to bale off of; you are dead weight that the world can no longer carry!

  22. BC on Tue, 25th Aug 2015 3:57 pm 

    short: In terms of net “energy slaves” per capita in the West, none of us can “pull our own weight” required to sustain our level of resource and goods and services production/consumption per capita.

    This strongly suggests that the overwhelming majority of us are de facto, or actual, “dead weight”.

    That “dead weight” has the same rate of free-fall acceleration off of a bridge as does “live weight”. 😀

  23. Truth Has A Liberal Bias on Tue, 25th Aug 2015 6:00 pm 

    Hey Nony since you’re so smart why don’t you produce a report that corrects all his mistakes? You fuckin retard.

  24. Nony on Tue, 25th Aug 2015 7:10 pm 

    Too lazy.

  25. Truth Has A Liberal Bias on Tue, 25th Aug 2015 7:47 pm 

    More like too stupid

  26. Nony on Tue, 25th Aug 2015 8:55 pm 

    Well looks like you answered your question. Now go run off and listen to some NPR, watch some Daily Show. 🙂

  27. ghung on Tue, 25th Aug 2015 8:55 pm 

    Truth Has A Liberal Bias:


    Let me know when you think they’re using renewables to make renewables. When they’re using solar power to make solar panels put up a link.”

    Typical assholyness of holding renewables to a different standard. Show me a major energy source that wasn’t piggy-backed on another earlier energy source. Even wood is solar power.

    Indeed, every source of energy you can name has solar embodied somewhere in its evolution. The main reason that renewables aren’t reproducing themselves is that they don’t have to. Doesn’t mean they can’t. Saying they’ll never do that at scale is irrelevant since that will apply to all industrial age processes within a generation or two, so we tell ourselves stories about what will and won’t work going forward. That’s a pretty fucked-up Möbius to be caught in; thinking anything will preserve your growth-based, deep-into-overshoot industrial party.

  28. Truth Has A Liberal Bias on Tue, 25th Aug 2015 9:45 pm 

    I hold everything up to the same standard. It’s called reality. Renewables will be gone shortly after oil is. Yes ghung, oil will be gone one day. I know you seem to think it’s gonna trickle in forever but it won’t. It will be gone. Not tomorrow. Not all at once. But it will be gone. And with it will be gone all your windmills and batteries and solar panels and whatever else little devices you seem think will keep your life on track..You’re like a junkie who can’t admit the truth.

  29. Truth Has A Liberal Bias on Tue, 25th Aug 2015 9:49 pm 

    You’re a fucking idiot Nony. I’m a conservative in the truest sense of the word. I realize your little ad hominem attack to label me a lefty is the best your puny intellect can come up with as you surely assume that anyone who doesn’t agree with you or like you must have to be a ‘leftie’, but as usual you’re wrong. You’re a moron. A dumb person from a country full of dumb people.

  30. Truth Has A Liberal Bias on Tue, 25th Aug 2015 9:56 pm

  31. Truth Has A Liberal Bias on Tue, 25th Aug 2015 10:05 pm 

    America is getting played again. This time by the Saudis. There was once a time when if you messed with America they would fly 1/2 way around the planet and kick your ass. They’d do it on a Tuesday if they wanted and it’d cost 48 billion. But those days are long gone. Nowadays you can’t even kick the ass of a bunch of renegade rag heads with nothing to their name but an AK and a pair of sandals. And Saudi has got you bent over the oil drum and is giving it to you from behind with no Vaseline. And there’s not a thing you can do about it. America is a living joke.

  32. theedrich on Wed, 26th Aug 2015 2:44 am 

    It’s nice to know that someone has solar panels that worked for two decades charging batteries and the like.  Maybe we can use suchlike gadgets to run Boeing 777’s and a million or so 18-wheelers, plus all the machines needed in wintertime Alaska.  And windmills for windless days everywhere.  Maybe we can get the Chinese Commies to produce and repair all the green goodies so that we can continue “growth” and keep the lemmings happy.  Meanwhile we can also just keep importing ThirdWorlders so our population, too, can persist in mindless, taxpayer-supported growth and the Demonic Party can stay in power forever.

  33. Nony on Wed, 26th Aug 2015 7:03 am 

    It’s gonna be alright.

  34. Davy on Wed, 26th Aug 2015 7:07 am 

    get after it NOo#$%:

  35. ghung on Wed, 26th Aug 2015 9:16 am 

    theedrich: “Maybe we can use suchlike gadgets to run Boeing 777’s and a million or so 18-wheelers, plus all the machines needed in wintertime Alaska. And windmills for windless days everywhere.”

    That’s why there’s no WE, at least not in the sense theedrich suggests. Offgridders are already used to living with intermittency and natural cycles, a concept that terrifies the gridweenie consumer. We aren’t the same WE he refers to. 777s? Just a noisy little dot in the sky that won’t be missed by some of us. 18 wheelers? The big, stinky, noisy road machines that distribute industrial foods that suppress prices for things we grow locally.

    And, I, for one, repair my own stuff. Very little a Chinaman can do that I can’t, at least for things we’re going to really need. Meanwhile, we’ll be adapting rather than freaking out because we didn’t plan ahead. We won’t panic because there’s no resilience and redundancy built into our lives. If we fail, it won’t be because we were utterly dependent on massive complex global systems that were doomed from the start.

    Gotta Plan B? Plan C? Gotta junk pile? Some of us do.

  36. theedrich on Thu, 27th Aug 2015 3:49 am 

    The problem is that “we” are all interconnected, as Joseph Tainter pointed out in his Collapse of Complex Societies.  When the SHTF, American megalopolitans in particular will lose their minds, since they have no ability to adapt to anything anymore, let alone to return to the eighteenth century (or maybe the Stone Age).  Not even flagellating themselves for being White will save them.  There will be nothing left to steal, so our feckless politicoes will be unable to do anything except moan and groan on TV and look for scapegoats.  American Whites do not riot, so from their quarters there will be no “grass-roots” upheavals, only a massive turn to drugs and crime.  On the other hand, illegal aliens will have a field day.

  37. Apneaman on Thu, 27th Aug 2015 5:10 am 

    The so called pilgrims were once illegal immigrants and they had a field day, so I guess what come around goes around eh? Technically, pilgrims are only supposed to stay for a short period of worship – not 500 fucking years. But I guess conquers just wasn’t fitting with the whole woe is me poor oppressed Christian victim charade. You know that sinking feeling you get when you see the pictures of climate refugees pouring over borders and knowing it’s just a matter of time before tens of millions, maybe hundreds of millions of Mexican and Central American climate refugees start wading across what’s left of the Rio Grande? That’s the feeling the Indians had 500 years ago when they saw that never ending stream of ships full of white devils, so I guess what comes around goes around eh? I get that same feeling myself everytime I think of the tens of millions, maybe hundreds of millions of ragged, ignorant, semi literate, fundamentalist, American climate refugees soon to be coming across the Canadian border and using up our resources and taking our jobs and many of them can’t even speak the language – well at least not correctly. Fucking migrants gonna mess up my god given right to a life of security and entitlement. I’m sure it was written down somewhere that I had a guarantee that turmoil would never happen in my life. Let me go see if I can find my copy of that document —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— Ok found it!
    At the top it says Manifest Destiny (white folks only), then there is a gianormous list of of entitlements and rights and freedoms and all sorts of goodies (no mention of responsibilities) and it goes on and on and on like that for ages, but unfortunately our cracker ancestors missed something in their exuberance of good fortune. Way way down at the bottom in teeny tiny little faded mouse print – you know the kind corporations, governments and fate use – it says

    Expires in 2020.


Leave a Reply

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