[Subjectivist]

But we have not invested in the upkeep of the electricity production and delivery system, and now we are not investing in the fossil fuel infrastructure either. In effect we are now eating our seed corn instead of planting it for future crops that would sustain us.

This does not give me great optimism for the future, even the short term future.

What we are seeing in the pullback of big projects by the major oil companies is a dis-investment in oil production infrastructure. The construction and maintenance costs for those offshore drilling rigs (up to $1 million/day in rentals) and monster tar-sands trucks will soon be too exorbitant so support. The same can be of the bridges and tunnels that carry the consumer economy.

Exactly, without upkeep we won't even be able to maintain our shaky level of supply we have today. It is kind of like building a house of cards in a basketball court, and then when the crowd goes yeah for a good stack th breeze and vibration from their approval knocks everything apart. We have to keep fixing the house or it will fall down.

[Shaved Monkey]

Another article on PO in the daily broadsheet/ business section.

Blinkered to threat of rising oil prices.
Oil production in Australia peaked in 2000.
It would have peaked worldwide too by now, had it not been for the shale oil boom in the US.
Some interesting work by this country's most unrelenting peak oil proponent, retired engineer Matt Mushalik, shows that without shale oil - which accounts for 1.5 million barrels a day - world oil production last year was back at 2005 levels.
It seems a monumental economic crisis may have been averted.

Still, the price of crude oil has stubbornly hovered around its present mark of $US108 a barrel for the past three years even as shale oil production has ramped up.

Thanks to the shale oil boom, the more alarmist cries of the peak oil brigade have been subdued.
Even with advancing technology and ever more sophisticated extraction methods though, it is London to a brick that the price of crude oil will rise sharply in the longer term.

You would think then that peak oil might be factored in to major policy decisions about the future of the nation and its infrastructure.

Energy security is paramount.


Research on oil, perhaps the most critical commodity for Australia's long-term security, has been abandoned.

As the Abbott government(Conservatives) grapples with the tricky question of how to fund big projects ahead of public hearings on infrastructure next month, the question of oil prices is not even on the agenda.

Already, the bias of state and federal governments for roads over rail has been well documented. (this government wants to be remembered as building the roads of the 21st century)
As oil is the most critical commodity in fuelling any transport option, you could be forgiven for thinking that it should be on the agenda.

Nothing in the issues papers, nothing in the draft report from the Productivity Commission.
It seems to be an article of faith that people will keep finding oil somewhere, so let's not give it a second thought.


In an interview with the US Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas in January, an ex-Saudi Aramco geologist, Dr Sadad Al-Husseini, predicted oil price spikes of $140 by 2016-17.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/blinkere ... z2wAF1Cv4g

[Shaved Monkey]

I saw this run past on the banner on the 24 hr news channel and googled their web site.
So its there but not screaming.

Energy agency predicts oil shortage unless supply boosted
Industrialised countries could be facing the prospect of an oil supply squeeze and higher prices later this year unless production is lifted, according to a report just released by the International Energy Agency.

In its latest Oil Market Report, the IEA says recent production gains will not be sufficient to meet market needs in the second half of the year when consumption picks up.
The IEA says OPEC nations will have to increase third quarter production by another 900,000 barrels per day from current levels to 30.7 million barrels per day to meet the expected demand.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-16/e ... ed/5457302

[Tanada]

Perhaps my prediction of falling off the plateau this year is being seen in future trends by the IEA? Unlike them I have predicted it at least twice before so I am not boasting, but if they are hinting at the same thing it does raise my confidence this time.

[ROCKMAN]

SM - Glad to see them raise a red flag. But we're still stuck with the confusion with the concept of supply/demand as used/misinterpreted. In one manner there will always be enough supply to meet demand because as production decreases or consumption increases prices will increase and reduce the demand from those who can no longer afford the price. IOW demand is nor just desire (there is today a huge desire for more oil globally then can be met) but the ability to pay the price kills that "demand". Today demand is fully satisfied by the supply: everyone with the funds to pay for the oil they want can buy all they want. Which has been true every since the first oil well was drilled (except for war time rationing, of course.)

So when they say that supply won't meet demand they must assume prices won't increase. IOW there will be more folks that can afford the oil at that time then the producers can deliver. To my memory that dynamic has never existed: when there has been more monies then supply available competition drives the prices up and thus reduces demand. It would seem they are calling for all the oil producers to increase production but to not increase prices. In fact, might need to also decrease the price so that this added demand can afford to buy the new production.

Yeah...that's going to happen. Let's all start holding our breaths now. LOL.

[Shaved Monkey]

Australian treasurer (Joe Hockey conservative)says
“the poorest people either don’t have cars or actually don’t drive very far in many cases”.
to justify increasing petrol tax (to pay for roads)

The analysis by the Australia Institute, a progressive think-tank, replicated Hockey’s figures that the lowest-earning 20% of households paid an average of $16.36 per week on petrol in 2009-10, rising to $53.87 for the highest-earning 20% of households.

But when expressed as a percentage of mean income for those same groups, the petrol spending represented 4.54% of income for the lowest-earning households but only 1.37% for the highest-earning ones.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/a ... ger-hockey
The tax was removed by a previous conservative government when petrol prices took off.

and another related article
An unemployed single mother with 3 kids having to choose between food and fuel

As the Treasurer later defended his claim that increasing the petrol tax would not be felt as hard by the poor, she was driving to Monash University's peninsula campus, where she is studying nursing in the hope of eventually earning more than the $24,000 a year she receives in welfare and family payments.

While Ms Lylak limits her driving to cut costs, she said she spent about $100 a week on petrol – about 20 per cent of her payments – as she travelled between home, school, children’s sporting commitments, university and shops.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ ... z3APT2iTJW

Its going to get ugly