Peak Oil is You

Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)

Page added on January 24, 2015

Bookmark and Share

Pickens: Producers can’t keep drilling at $45 oil

Energy tycoon Boone Pickens predicted on Friday that oil prices would be back near $70 or $80 a barrel by the fourth quarter of this year.

Oil producers in West Texas and North Dakota “can’t drill for $45 oil,” Pickens said on CNBC’s “Street Signs.”

“In the last 30 days they’ve dropped 300 rigs…. You’re gonna reach an all-time high on the inventory of oil, and it will be reached within the next six weeks, and then it will start to decline. ”

In December, Pickens forecast that oil prices would be back near $100 a barrel in 12 to 18 months. On Friday, he said he stood by that call.

With benchmark Brent crude prices down more 50 percent from a year ago, it may be hard for some to envision such a bullish move.But Pickens, the founder of BP Capital, said, “We’ve got good numbers here. We didn’t have a good year in a tough commodity dealing with energy, like we did, if we didn’t know what we’re talking about.” His firm saw it’s commodity fund jump 10 percent last year.

Following the death of his uncle, King Abdullah, Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal said the price of oil may rise, but it won’t go near $100 in this lifetime.

“The price may fluctuate between the four digit range… but as I said we’ll never see the price of oil again at $100,” the billionaire investor said in an interview with CNBC.

Pickens said Talal “doesn’t know what he’s talking about” with respect to oil prices.

T. Boone Pickens

Adam Jeffery | CNBC
T. Boone Pickens

“The reason the oil price has dropped is because of production here in the United States,” Pickens said. “No question, we were the ones that caused it, and we’ll be the ones that will fix it. And the way we fix it is our rig count will go down.”

The number of rigs drilling for oil in the U.S. fell 49 to 1,317, about 100 less than a year earlier, according to Baker Hughes data released on Friday. Last week, oil rig counts saw their second-sharpest weekly drop in 24 years, according to Reuters.

Last week, Pickens hosted a live chat on Twitter and cited oil rig counts, along with other factors, as major clues in determining a potential bottom in oil prices.


29 Comments on "Pickens: Producers can’t keep drilling at $45 oil"

  1. Davy on Sat, 24th Jan 2015 7:23 am 

    Well Tbone my call is the bumpy plateau is giving way to the bumpy descent. The oil glut is an economic induced oil glut reflecting the faux financial repression growth which is nothing more than digital deception. It represents central bank financial repression induced digital bubbles held together by investor confidence in central banks debt purchases. It is at limits of growth and diminishing returns. These policies have been nothing more than wealth transfer and cannibalism of the real underlying economy.

    The bumpy descent will involve increasing economic abandonment, dysfunctional economic systems, irrational economic policies, fraying social fabric, and geo-political brinkmanship. These are exactly the policies that will further destroy growth along with oil depletion and financial decay. We are likely in the bumpy descent or in the vicinity. Demand and supply will likely be destroyed in a lockstep down in a vicious circle of a historic paradigm shift from growth to descent. We will see the normal market gyrations especially since these markets are in reality a faux economy that is digital. The real economy that is physical and natural ecosystem based will continue the trend down. The real and digital have little resemblance when one considers the stated debt outstanding compared to what we know is physical.

    Oil prices will likely spike up at some point when enough supply is shut in only to baseball bat further real growth in the real economy. Once a likely financial system implosion occurs then that is likely all-she-wrote for new oil supply. Although a command economy in a martial law environment could possibly briefly boost production.

    A complex self-organizing system like BAU cannot be managed. It will follow its systematic trends not faux BAU digital trends. Since descent is random and chaotic there is in reality little of the longer term forecasting we can do and the typical exponential growth based forecasting we see so often from academics, economists, and corn porn politicians. This leaves the time frame debatable.

    In the near term BAU will limp on but in the longer term I see no outcome other than a collapse to a lower level of economic activity. Unfortunately this will not solve the existing predicaments of limits of growth, over population, and AGW. BAU’s contraction will initiate the natural process of bring these excesses into balance. Nature and reality will unmistakably rule the show soon. The grid will likely destabilize and mass communication will end as we know it. Hopefully some locals with life boat potential will adjust and mitigate this fall once the hopium from the top goes silent. All of us should evaluate our situation in our locals now while BAU still offers us a chance to transition away from BAU dependence.

  2. dissident on Sat, 24th Jan 2015 7:25 am 

    A dose of reality badly needed by the MSM cornucopians. But few will be listening.

  3. shortonoil on Sat, 24th Jan 2015 8:33 am 

    Pickens is right that drillers can’t keep drilling at $45/ barrel. He is wrong in believing that oil will return to $100. Oil is a finite commodity, with a finite value, and depletion is continuously reducing both of those amounts.

    The price that the economy can pay for oil can not exceed the value of the economic activity it can power. That is declining because the highest quality oil was used first. We have done the calculations to determine what the maximum price that the economy can pay for oil:

    There appears to be a sense of denial in the world of oil. That denial is generated from a “wish” that petroleum is somehow different from all other things. They want to believe that it is not subject to the Laws of Physics. The industry wants to believe that it is like a Phoenix; it can forever arise from its own ashes; but nothing could be any further from the truth.

    Nature endowed the earth with a great store of wealth. Humanity took it, and used it, for good, or for bad. Like a child in a candy jar, we never stopped to consider what we would do when the jar finally went empty. Now, we have to reach ever further into that jar. Our little fingers are grasping at the last few pieces on its bottom.

    Drillers can’t keep drilling at $45/ barrel. The price of oil will never again achieve the stratospheric levels it once knew. At some point, not too far into the future, humanity will begin to understand that the jar is now almost empty.

  4. bobinget on Sat, 24th Jan 2015 8:57 am 

    Respectfully. shortonoil:

    Since January 1,2015 the world population, minus deaths, has created THREE new Toronto’s worth of
    babies. 1/24/15….. if that’s not scary, what is?

    I would truly love to embrace shortonoil’s wish we leave the remaining oil in the ground.
    But oil, airline tickets, being too cheap won’t stop a million grandmas from flying in to see the the new baby.

  5. forbin on Sat, 24th Jan 2015 9:06 am 


    1, Oil is a finite commodity,


    2, with a finite value,

    also true but that value is not set just for the burning of it. The need take into account the value a feedstock for other products is required

    but most of all the stock market trading of the product I’l think you’ll find can reach some really silly figures on electronic trading …..

    3, and depletion is continuously reducing both of those amounts.

    Certainly oil is being depleted but I ain’t so clear on it value dropping unless we have no further use for it

    nice web site btw


  6. indigo on Sat, 24th Jan 2015 10:36 am 

    Hi shortonoil
    I’ve studied your graphs and calcs a few times now, and generally speaking I think you are on the right track. That said, I wonder about your ‘Maximum Consumer Price’? To cut to the chase I ask this ~ Which consumer?
    You seem to be basing your Max Consumer Price on industrial usage, and as your website says :
    “The Maximum Consumer Price curve is curtailed at 2020 at $11.76/ barrel. At this point petroleum will no longer be acting as a significant energy source for the economy”
    That may be true, but :
    My broad point is this : There are ‘leisure’ consumers and ‘industrial’ consumers. Eg.~ If I am calculating the validity of my business model. then energy costs are a big component. But if I am a fat assed Boomer who needs to do a round trip of 60 miles, then my willingness to pay for petrol, is higher,( than a pragmatic industrialist?), so that I do not need to cycle my fat ass, the 60 miles round trip?.
    In short, will not your ‘Max Consumer Price’, (of fuel), have to include a variety of widely different end uses and ‘willingness to pay’ on the part of the ‘consumer’.?
    I’m not saying your overview is wrong, but, your Maximum Consumer Price, needs to include a broader definition of ‘Consumer’ perhaps? The Maximum Consumer Price surely, depends on (a) where on the planet you reside, (b) your wealth or disposable income, (c) what you intend to use the fuel for, (d) whether the utility value is worth the extra cost to you…?
    As such, your MCP might be skewed (upwards?), by fat assed consumers who don’t want to walk, rather that pragmatic industrialists who see no merit or profit in paying at a certain price level?

  7. Perk Earl on Sat, 24th Jan 2015 10:39 am 

    If the cost of new extraction exceeds the energy value to the end consumer, then it no longer does what it use to do. Instead of growth we get contraction and with sufficient contraction comes collapse.

    It’s not a steady state situation; as incrementally the net energy content of oil is depleting as we scrape the bottom of the barrel having negative knock on economic effects. Attempts to counter that trend with desperate fiscal QE double reverse to flea flicker hail Mary pass plays cannot change physics.

    Here’s a simple example: Let’s say you are the first person to the Yellow River in CA in the 1800’s. At first there are big nuggets, then smaller nuggets, the pebbles of gold, then granules, grains, specks, dust, but then you start washing down the hills and use mercury to separate the gold dust from the dirt and rocks. Then at some point of diminishing returns you realize that by even working 24/7 it still doesn’t make economic sense and you lay off the workers and shut it down.

    Oil is the same, except it’s not so obvious. There’s plenty there, but relative to the EROEI we need to fuel our expanding economy, it’s no longer making economic sense. Consumers can only afford so much, so the price has a ceiling. But an affordability ceiling does not have anything to do with what it costs to bring the stuff to market, and that’s what we’re seeing now.

    Essentially what we are having is a going out of business sale in which oil is selling for less than many marginal sources require. Even if it goes up some, it won’t be enough to sustain continued economic growth or secure future supply, contraction will ensue and so on until the oil age is over.

  8. steve on Sat, 24th Jan 2015 11:06 am 

    short saidPickens is right that drillers can’t keep drilling at $45/ barrel. He is wrong in believing that oil will return to $100. Oil is a finite commodity, with a finite value, and depletion is continuously reducing both of those amounts….”

    I don’t know how you can say that when there is an organisation called simply the FED that can print money at will…not enough money to drill? here you go drilling companies 3 trillion for ya! Just don’t tell anybody where you got it!! And will take that bad debt off your hands and all will be good….I am not saying this can go on forever but it can go on for a long…long time….and making predictions on when collapse will come and price of oil is just showing your ignorance of this idiotic system we have. Countries like the U.S and some European countries are going to bleed everyone dry until there is nothing left except to fight a war..

  9. shortonoil on Sat, 24th Jan 2015 12:38 pm 

    I don’t know how you can say that when there is an organisation called simply the FED that can print money at will

    The old “the FED can print money fallacy”. The FED does not print money, the FED prints currency. Money is goods and services; currency is bits in a computer that represents those goods and services. When the FED prints currency several things happen. They push asset prices upward, and interest rates down. When interest rates go down the time value of money (goods and services) declines. Since oil is in the “goods” department, the more currency the FED pours into an economy with fixed money, the lower the price of oil.

    Another thing that people seem to miss is that the FED is a privately held bank. It is owned by its member banks. The QE’s have poured liquidity into those member banks, it was not distributed to the general economy. The FED has essentially printed up $6 trillion, and handed it to itself. The Federal Government went along with the whole fiasco because they used government bonds to do it. The banks now hold 90% of all long term government debt.

    There is a plethora of reasons why the FED is not going to be printing $3 trillion, and handing it over to the shale industry. The FED is now in a liquidity trap, and they are not going to jeopardize their own existence to save some operator in a North Dakota cow pasture. But, the main reason is that banks do not give away money. They horde every last cent of it in their greedy little hands. The mythology that the the FED will save shale is very much like the myth that shale would lead to energy independence. How did that work out?

  10. steve on Sat, 24th Jan 2015 1:01 pm 

    I see what you are saying short and you are right…on paper that is the limitations of the FED but how do you really know what the FED can and can’t do? Are you in the meetings? I don’t mean to be crass but they are a “secret” organisation. The point I am clumsily trying to make is that what we see as the system is so manipulated that it is no longer what we think it is…but people will not question it because the alternative is much scarier….so we all go on pretending much like we go on pretending that we will not die soon….

  11. Plantagenet on Sat, 24th Jan 2015 1:30 pm 

    The oil price goes up and down. Right now its down. Someday it will go back up.

    Short is no more likely to be right with his claim that oil prices will stay permanently low then other people were when they claimed the oil price would stay permanently high.

  12. GregT on Sat, 24th Jan 2015 2:31 pm 

    Oil prices can only go as high as what society can afford. When societies collapse due to the un-affordability of oil, we will be in a permanent ‘oil glut’. Whether that oil is priced at $100,000 per barrel or $1 per barrel will make no difference.

  13. shortonoil on Sat, 24th Jan 2015 2:35 pm 

    I don’t mean to be crass but they are a “secret” organisation.

    lol, You aren’t. But I do know people who work for the FED. The only thing you get out of them is what they don’t say. But look at it this way, a least part of the very low prices is the result of shale. Our model indicates a max price of $76 for 2015, and we are far below that. If the FED could, did, save shale they would be destroying the rest of the nations oil industry. A lot of these guys aren’t going to survive long at $46, and shale is the least valuable of those producers. 1.2 mb/d of their production won’t even make transportation fuels.

    Also, the FED is owned by an international banking cartel. You could call it the Rothschild, Rockefeller, Warburg, Soros group. They have interest in oil production all over the world. They aren’t going to sacrifice those interest with $46 oil to save an upstart US shale industry. There is absolutely no reason for the FED to save US shale. The FED will look after #1 first, no matter what it cost anyone else.

    The only hope for shale would be the US Government. 2016 is an election year. Good luck with that! They can’t even get the Keystone approved; try throwing in a few $trillion to save some Texas hillbillies. Shale is dead, and was nothing more an a financial freak show to begin with.

  14. ghung on Sat, 24th Jan 2015 2:44 pm 

    Since currency is in essence a claim on energy and resources, when functioning properly, the central bank acts as a virtual battery or capacitor, initially charged with a store of virtual energy and resources actually backed by real energy and resources (commodities). In times of surplus, this store can be fully charged to then be discharged in times of deficit as needed. When surpluses return, the system can be recharged even as the needs of the economy are being met.

    Of course, growth and entropy come into play, as do other inefficiencies, so an ever-increasing surplus is required to keep the system viable. Like the battery in my home, inputs must always exceed withdrawals (in the form of actual work done), or the system becomes discharged and can do no more real work for my micro-economy. Adding imaginary electrons to the system (resetting my indicators for instance) only gives the appearance that the system will remain viable.

    Increasing the central bank’s balance sheet will never increase the amount of energy and resources supposedly represented by those dollars (or whatever). That’s tantamount to treating the economy as a perpetual motion (or so-called free energy) machine. Increasing the number of claims on real energy and resources doesn’t increase actual energy and resources available to the economy, though it can increase the rate at which they are produced (stimulus). Of course, in a system with a fixed amount of energy and resources, claims on those things will eventually become devalued as rates of production meet hard limits.

    The other side to this story is that it’s possible to create a temporary surplus even as the value of the claims on those produced resources is declining. The system is too populated with devalued claims to absorb the increased production, similar to a battery getting old; reduced capacity to absorb the surplus. Any additions to the system get rejected as waste heat. I can add solar panels to my system, but their production must be used in real time (as produced) or be lost. The value of that produced net energy gets reduced by my inability to use it, even as my costs of production may stay the same.

    At least, in my system, the amount of sunlight (resources) available will remain relatively constant over time. Not so with our global economy; a system that requires ever-increasing amounts of inputs. Increasing the claims on those inputs doesn’t increase those input allotments. It only changes the depletion rate. True price discovery must occur at some point.

  15. synapsid on Sat, 24th Jan 2015 3:39 pm 


    I agree that the thought of three new Torontos is scary.

    Oh, you meant the NUMBERS.

  16. Speculawyer on Sat, 24th Jan 2015 4:34 pm 

    I have no idea what will happen. But if forced to guess, this seems to be a reasonable guess. Well, I think it might take longer due to the momentum, weak economy in places, and efficiency. Perhaps only up to $60/barrel by the end of the year.

  17. Adam A on Sat, 24th Jan 2015 5:15 pm 

    We could usefully have this conversation without mentioning money or currency at all. Money is just a proxy for the value of something – a way to conveniently enable comparison between the worth of one commodity or activity against another.

    What we are seeing at present then, may be exemplified as:- ‘I am having to work more hours than there are in a day to be able to secure the previously-normal amount of ‘stuff’ which I used to be able to get to sustain the way I lived. In other words; I’m getting less stuff for the same effort, no matter how many hours of my labour I put in. So stuff is slipping out of my reach.

    A super yacht is now out of my reach, so I am not in the market for super yachts anymore. (As if I ever was!) So super yachts are now worthless to me.

    Ditto a new car, so new cars are worthless to me.

    I will only exchange some much of my time and effort for a litre of petrol/ If it requires more time it becomes worthless to me as, among all demands on my time, I can only afford to allocate so much to exchange for petrol. If I need what petrol used to give me but I cannot ‘afford’ it, then I will make other arrangements to achieve what previously-affordable petrol used to give me.

    There are only 24 hours in my day, and I have access to scant and diminishing supplies of ‘free’ raw materials that I can dig from the earth to leverage my effort.

    $100 oil is out of my reach, so I made other arrangements. So was $50 oil, and someday as EROI heads for unity so will $25 oil. I will have made other arrangements. Such ‘arrangements’ may include an increased degree of self-sufficiency, or maybe I will have starved or frozen to death.

    So regardless of the size of the M1 supply or the amount of cash in government bonds or the number of trillions of QE, every aspect of my BAU life sees reduced return on my effort. Government services complexity and costs are increasing exponentially while service outcomes are going the other way. To get food I have to work longer, to get a light bulb to replace a blown one I have to work much longer because the replacements for incandescents require five times my work to buy – no matter how smart they are – and they do the same job as the cheaper one.

    Take ‘money’ out of the discussion, and the death-spiral of BAU becomes much more apparent.

    Keep on planting the spinach!


  18. Bob Owens on Sat, 24th Jan 2015 5:26 pm 

    Predicting the price of oil is a fool’s errand. Not even the Pope foresaw this steep drop in oil prices. So how can anyone predict the future price? You can’t. If the demand for oil drops faster than production then we will have low prices. This appears to be what is happening as the world goes into depression. For the last 5 years oil has been about $100; for the next 5 years it could remain as cheap or cheaper than it is today, barring a disaster, that is. Demand for oil is shrinking just as it is for all commodities.

  19. shortonoil on Sat, 24th Jan 2015 6:21 pm 

    Predicting the price of oil is a fool’s errand. Not even the Pope foresaw this steep drop in oil prices.

    Interesting that you should say that! We were informing people in May of last year of an upcoming price plunge, and put this page up in September. The date is on the second graph:

    Guess it is a question of believing the Nay Sayers, or your own lying eyes.

  20. tahoe1780 on Sat, 24th Jan 2015 6:28 pm 

    As oil prices rise, gasoline prices rise. We pay more and more to travel less and less (MPG technology notwithstanding). At some point, travel becomes an expensive luxury.

  21. Makati1 on Sat, 24th Jan 2015 7:09 pm 

    Perhaps the US cannot afford $100/bbl oil, but it seems that many others can. Here in the Ps, gas has been ~$5/gal for years while oil was $100+/bbl and the economy is still growing at about 6%/year. China is still growing with $100 oil. Ditto many other countries outside the West. So, to say that oil will never be $100/bbl. again is not anymore realistic than those who claim that it will go to $11/bbl.

    If you don’t waste it going to WalMart in an SUV at 15 MPG, but use it in a motor trike that gets triple the mileage and carries 3 people easily, it is worth $100/bbl. I am sure that this example is duplicated in most, if not all, of the countries that still have real growth. They don’t have the suburban sprawl of the US to power up.

    And, if you take into account real inflation, The $50 of today will be $100 in less than a decade. Numbers mean nothing except as reference to the past, not the future. It will be NET ENERGY from ground to consumer that determines the future, not price. (After the bankruptcy/consolidation epidemic is over.)

  22. James Tipper on Sat, 24th Jan 2015 7:36 pm 

    If you look at the amount of requested permits for the last two months you’ll find they’ve all but diminished drastically. The only people who want permits are people who want to insure that they will get the oil at a later date and simply want to hold on to the land now. But furthermore this oil will likely hold between $40-60 dollars for the short-term but in the long term I expect it to go higher.

    Eventually they will start publishing numbers in OPEC and around the world of lower oil production. They have to for economic reasons and depletion reasons. It’s very convenient, maybe a conspiracy(although I’m not a conspiracy person) that just as we assume certain nations should be winding down their production there is a “oil price falling” that is an excuse to produce less oil. Rather than the real reason which is that have less oil and want to keep more of it.

    Peak oil will reach global consciousness awareness level somewhere between 2020-2025. I just hope in the distant future peak oil is talked about even 1/10th as much as global warming. I also wish oil prices would stay above $100/barrel so we could talk about peak oil. Now that prices are low it’s like talking to a brick wall even though the problem is still alive and well.

    Well it be inflationary price of oil or a deflationary death spiral? Who knows? And honestly who cares? I mean there’s nothing we lowly commoners can do anyway. At least while peak oil is that last issue on people’s mind. It will quickly become the first issue a couple of years from now. We can only wait.

  23. Unit30Bull on Sat, 24th Jan 2015 10:13 pm 

    Mr. Tipper,

    Obtaining a permit doesn’t allow an oil company to hold a lease. The lease requires a well to be drilled and have economically viable production to hold the lease. Hence the term “HBP a lease”: Held By Production

  24. GregT on Sat, 24th Jan 2015 11:17 pm 

    “Peak oil will reach global consciousness awareness level somewhere between 2020-2025.”

    We are experiencing the dynamics of Peak Oil (POD) right now. People are not conscious of peak oil, nor are they aware. Yet here we are, and most people are oblivious as to what is happening, never mind why.

  25. Edward Boyle on Sun, 25th Jan 2015 6:02 am

    a google search came up with this article. I guess a few guys own all oil, banks, everything so maybe they have differing family interests, as all rich clans, maybe squabbles, like in house of Saud, and control stuff that happens only as far as the exwife, mother in law, etc. let them. Maybe the price dropped because of a long standing internal family feud in this group. Maybe ww2 or ww1 happened for same reason. This is like x files conspiracy stuff without the aliens. 10 guys rule the world and collect ‘rents’ from govts., businesses. Then the wife of one wants to buy an island, etc. and needs a trillion or two so we have a global economic crisis, regional wars anda billion starve. Then that wife gets bored and takes up yoga and we have peace on earth until the teenage daughter starts acting up. Rinse, repeat..

  26. Davy on Sun, 25th Jan 2015 7:41 am 

    “Globalresearch” is no better than Fox or Forbes just in a different spectrum. Those who constantly link them show their agenda seeking. This does not mean I don’t read the stuff. If you are looking for the truth and facts you cannot limit yourself to sources. Agendas seek message advancement for selfish reasons. The truth and facts are selectively used to paint a picture that fits the agenda seekers world view. These agenda seekers will not tolerate anything that opposes their world view. They selective use the truth and facts instead of lies because lies discredit. Agenda seekers know facts must be used to accredit. Agenda seekers are among the most malicious in disregard for others. We are all agenda seekers to a degree. Where agenda seeking diverges from OK is when it is pursued for selfish reasons. There are some on this board who need to justified their failed lives and or latent hatred that must be fed.

    We are nearing a paradigm shift that may include the end of civilization but likely the end of modern man. It is now that we must more than ever turn away from hatred, blame, and resentment. This has never been so true than now in a globalized world where each and every one of us are in a delocalized local that depends on the global for survival. Every one of our locals are codependent and interconnected with this global. IOW all our locals are linked in the need for support from one another by the importance of protecting the global.

    This dependence is a Catch 22 because this global BAU is what is also going to lead to a collapse our species suicide. This is a paradox and a “damned if you do and damned if you don’t”. The paradox is we must use BAU to transition out of BAU. The Catch 22 is time, environment, and resources may not be there and the using up of the above is leading closer to the end game. Since there is no way to forecast these systematic variables that are at the level of self-organization we can only try as a species to avoid bad decisions.

    Hatred, selfish advancement, and resentment at the top and the bottom cannot be promoted. It must be mitigated with sobriety and reason. There are too many people’s lives at risk. We will not prevent the natural process of a halving of the global population in a generation. That will be natures employ and prerogative but we can try to mitigate our species own drive to self-destruction so as to leave something behind. Nearly all species primary purpose is reproduction and advancement of their species. It seems to be man and his large brain that has progress to a point with his duality and exceptionalism that seeks personal advancement over species advancement.

    How many here or out there in the global could give a shit about a future for the human species. There are some that believe humans should go extinct because of what we have done to a beautiful world. I fancy these thoughts on occasion when I see environmental rape and pillage. Yet, lets us try to keep the door open to species advancement in some way shape or form by coming together and rejecting divisions. Someday many years hence a people in a new world long transitioned out of the modern will through myth and lore compliment us for giving them life.

  27. steve on Sun, 25th Jan 2015 10:03 am 

    “We are experiencing the dynamics of Peak Oil (POD) right now. People are not conscious of peak oil, nor are they aware. Yet here we are, and most people are oblivious as to what is happening, never mind why.”

    Greg for some reason I have to know this “why” from where I sit there seems to be a concerted effort to not discuss this or allow it into discussion. Why? I can’t figure out why this would be advantageous.

  28. Kenz300 on Sun, 25th Jan 2015 12:01 pm 

    The sooner we transition to electric vehicles the better………

    It is time to end the oil monopoly on transportation fuels……..

  29. Harquebus on Sun, 25th Jan 2015 8:18 pm 

    Not so fast. I hear the Draghi cavalry a comin’.

Leave a Reply

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