[Hegel]

Yergins publications are for the birds.

[GreyZone]

July 13, 2006 is Daniel Yergin Day, so named for Daniel Yergin's eternal optimism that oil will return to $38 per barrel "soon". This day was selected since it was the first time that oil has passed $76 per barrel which is twice what Mr. Yergin has consistently predicted. Feel free to tell others about Daniel Yergin Day too. We all need a good laugh now and then.

[dub_scratch]

I think Jeffrey Brown has really done a good job at identifying the vested interest in PO denial and how they have been able to control the national consensus with this "iron triangle". This is not an overt conspiracy to intentionally mislead the public. It is a set powerful players who control public information and whose financial well being is dependant on the public's confidence in the business-as-usual (or namely the suburban sprawl/cheap oil paradigm). Many within the "iron triangle" end up believing in the PO denial case, regardless of the lack of evidence for it.

[DoomersUnite]

Hey, if Simmons and Goldman Sachs can screw it up on the high side last winter, whats wrong with Yergin being wrong on the low side? Besides, after a nice oil shock started recession, I figure Yergin has a better chance of being right than Simmons.
Heard the guy on MSNBC or ABC a couple weeks ago, no wonder people don't beleive us Doomers, he comes across as alot more coherent than anything coming out of our side.

[mekrob]

I have a hard time believing that oil will return to $38 like Yergin proclaims. True, we could very well drop down to that in numerical terms, but in actual value, it will only and can only increase, especially when you figure in the depreciating US dollar. If oil does return to $38 in coming years, bread will be a nickel and milk a dime. Wages may surpass a dollar a day. $38 oil won't help anyone out.

[GreyZone]

A depreciating US dollar can only result in higher prices since it would take more of the depreciate dollars to buy the same amount of any good or service. I think you are confusing inflation and deflation. In a deflationary situation, yes, oil could return to $38 per barrel or even wages to a dollar a day.

To DoomersUnite: Please show me the URL of the specific post where Simmons stated that oil would go to $100 per barrel. What Simmons actually said was that oil could go to $100 per barrel because the market was very tight and all it would take would be some trigger incident. This comment was, of course, taken out of context especially by cornucopians as "proof" that Simmons was wrong.

I am not familiar with the Goldman-Sachs quote so I won't attempt to answer that. Maybe they were just flat out wrong. However, about Yergin, he STILL insists that prices are going to go back down. Eventually you conclude that he is a one note canary and can't sing any other tunes. Someday he might be right but it will be entirely by accident and not because he is good at understanding the oil market. In fact, the years preceding him being right (if ever) will be proof of how totally wrong he actually is.

[DoomersUnite]

I have a hard time believing that oil will return to $36 like Yergin proclaims. True, we could very well drop down to that in numerical terms, but in actual value, it will only and can only increase, especially when you figure in the depreciating US dollar. If oil does return to $36 in coming years, bread will be a nickel and milk a dime. Wages may surpass a dollar a day. $36 oil won't help anyone out.

Nah...recessions work faster doing demand destruction than field depletion and decline. Once OPEC can't sell everything they produce, prices will come back down. Of course, if you are unemployed $36/oil won't help you any.
And $1/day is just a silly wage, and presupposes like a complete destruction of most modern economies, which, wihle amusing to those of us ready for it, is highly unlikely.

[dub_scratch]

Heard the guy on MSNBC or ABC a couple weeks ago, no wonder people don't beleive us Doomers, he comes across as alot more coherent than anything coming out of our side.

First of all, it is "Peakers" not "Doomers" you should refer to as the "us". Some Peakers are Doomers but not all Peakers are Doomers. I for one am very skeptical of the near or long term future supplying abundant cheap energy. But I don't subscribe to much of this doomer dieoff stuff either (not in my lifetime anyway).

But semantics aside, the reason why the public believes the assertions of Yergin over the Peaker skepticism is due to inherent bias. It is just not in many people's interest to take the news objectively as to whether or not oil peak is in our near future.

IMO, PO will come as a surprise or a shock, regardless of the date of its occurrence. If PO were to happen 20 years from now, as Yergin suggests, the public would be in just as much of denial as they are today. And if CERA were to hold to their prediction of an oil peak in the 2020's, they then would be scorned by the new crop of cornucopians.

[DoomersUnite]

To DoomersUnite: Please show me the URL of the specific post where Simmons stated that oil would go to $100 per barrel. What Simmons actually said was that oil could go to $100 per barrel because the market was very tight and all it would take would be some trigger incident. This comment was, of course, taken out of context especially by cornucopians as "proof" that Simmons was wrong.

link and link Context looked fine to me. And Simmons sure looked more than a little off base.

However, about Yergin, he STILL insists that prices are going to go back down. Eventually you conclude that he is a one note canary and can't sing any other tunes. Someday he might be right but it will be entirely by accident and not because he is good at understanding the oil market. In fact, the years preceding him being right (if ever) will be proof of how totally wrong he actually is.

Yergin comes across like a one note canary with at least a functioning brain.....I saw RocDocs critique of Simmons presentation and his use of SPE papers to make a point....the guy looks incompetent in how he uses SPE papers, let alone interprets them. Simmons also predicted something like $40/MCF for natural gas, my guess is he doesn't know that natural gas is actually close to collasping here in the States and spent most of the winter cratering.

[DoomersUnite]

Heard the guy on MSNBC or ABC a couple weeks ago, no wonder people don't beleive us Doomers, he comes across as alot more coherent than anything coming out of our side.

First of all, it is "Peakers" not "Doomers" you should refer to as the "us". Some Peakers are Doomers but not all Peakers are Doomers.

6 of one, half dozen of another momma always used to say. I say we're all in the same boat, us against them, some of us beleive in slightly less drastic versions of Doom, its all cool.

But semantics aside, the reason why the public believes the assertions of Yergin over the Peaker skepticism is due to inherent bias. It is just not in many people's interest to take the news objectively as to whether or not oil peak is in our near future.

Well, inherent bias might be one explanation, but Yergin not sounding like a lunatic sure doesn't hurt. When a Doomer/Peaker stands up and runs through a Ruppert-like spiel, his ideas get kissed off right off the bat because they sound like a nutjob. To heck with inherent bias, Yergin just ends up SOUNDING reasonable, whereas the other guy comes across like a conspiracy nut who thinks it is all Georges fault.

IMO, PO will come as a surprise or a shock, regardless of the date of its occurrence. If PO were to happen 20 years from now, as Yergin suggests, the public would be in just as much of denial as they are today. And if CERA were to hold to their prediction of an oil peak in the 2020's, they then would be scorned by the new crop of cornucopians.

Who cares what anyone SAYS, whether its Yergin or Simmons silliness, Peak is just gonna happen, sooner rather than later, nothing is going to stop it, the only question is whether or not it can be stopped/changed/mitigated when it does happen, and if the unemployed hordes can break through the household defenses before it happens, or enough people croak to even everything out, resources wise.

[GreyZone]

Wow. So let's pull Simmons quotes out of those articles in case anyone hasn't bothered to go look and just accepts your assessment without examining the quotes directly.

ROCKETING oil prices might hit $100 (£57) this year, controversial Texan oil analyst Matt Simmons has warned.
Crude surged past $60 a barrel last week and investors are pinning their hopes on a build-up in US oil-stocks to bring the price down again in the coming months. However, Simmons said surging demand will keep prices well above $50.
"We could be at $100 by this winter," he said. "We have the biggest risk we have ever had of demand exceeding supply. We are about to face up to the biggest crisis we have ever had."

(Emphasis mine.)

Could be. Risk. Hmmm....What did the other article say?

Consumers should brace for crude oil and natural gas prices possibly doubling or tripling this winter, Matthew Simmons, a best-selling author and oil-supply bear, said on Wednesday.
"Prices are really cheap today and they need to go a lot higher, and they probably will go a lot higher," Simmons said in Ottawa. "I am very concerned, given the destructive damage done by (Hurricanes) Katrina and Rita, that the United States must be closer to starting to see significant product shortages than we've seen since 1979."

Too much got destroyed and too little has been brought back on stream, the Houston-based analyst said. He also said that cold weather this winter could bring a very high risk of natural gas curtailment in the United States. "Either one of those events (oil product shortage or natural gas shortage) could send prices two to three times higher than they are today," he said after a speech in Ottawa.
That could translate into natural gas prices of $40 per million British thermal units from more than $13 now, he said. Doubling or tripling crude would put it in the range of $125 to $190 per barrel.

(Emphasis mine.)

He identifies 2 specific events that could trigger $100 per barrel prices. Neither of those events did happen. I fail to see where he made a failed prediction, whereas Yergin flatly predicted, WITHOUT ANY CAVEATS WHATSOEVER, that oil would return to $38 per barrel. Looks to me like Yergin is the bigger "lunatic", to use your own ad hominem attack.

[dub_scratch]

Well, inherent bias might be one explanation, but Yergin not sounding like a lunatic sure doesn't hurt. When a Doomer/Peaker stands up and runs through a Ruppert-like spiel, his ideas get kissed off right off the bat because they sound like a nutjob.

Yes, the Peaker/oil skeptics pool has been contaminated with crackpot asshole conspiracy nuts such as Ruppert. But then again, why is Ruppert's voice so loud in the PO arena? I think that is because of there is a vacuum on the part of those who look at the oil depletion issue.

To heck with inherent bias, Yergin just ends up SOUNDING reasonable, whereas the other guy comes across like a conspiracy nut who thinks it is all Georges fault.

And why does Yergin sound reasonable to many? Is it in his style, or his case presented, or is it just because what "reasonable" is too many people is the impossible ideas of perpetual energy and perpetual growth? In other words, is it this crackpot public consensus that is pushing real reason out into the wilderness with all the nutty stuff.

And have you noticed that the abiotic oil theory-- which is truly crackpot-- isn't attacked by the respected cornucopians and the MSM as much as peak oil? Why is that? And even some of the respected peak oil debunkers, such as O'dell, have embraced the abiotic oil theory.

[markam]

And $1/day is just a silly wage, and presupposes like a complete destruction of most modern economies, which, wihle amusing to those of us ready for it, is highly unlikely.

Actually, 1 silver dollar a day was the average wage before we went off of the gold standard and destroyed our currency. Once we go back to a real currency, based upon gold/silver, 1 dollar a day should once again be the average wage in america.

[DoomersUnite]

Simmons said....We are about to face up to the biggest crisis we have ever had."

Simmons speculated, qualified, spun, and then capped it off with the preceeding statement.
We can parse it all to death, but its inherently biased. He doesn't also say, "well gee, if all the new fields scheduled to come on, come on, then oil could also hit $10/BBL". He specifically went for high prices and Doomer scenario's. Inherent bias. Which is why I always wonder where he puts his money, when he spins only one side of the possibilities?

What did the other article say? He also said that cold weather this winter could bring a very high risk of natural gas curtailment in the United States. He identifies 2 specific events that could trigger $100 per barrel prices. Neither of those events did happen. I fail to see where he made a failed prediction, whereas Yergin flatly predicted, WITHOUT ANY CAVEATS WHATSOEVER, that oil would return to $38 per barrel. Looks to me like Yergin is the bigger "lunatic", to use your own ad hominem attack.

Yergin didn't say it would happen last winter. Sounds like that makes him smarter right off the bat. But even if he isn't, lets give Simmons the benefit of a doubt, Simmons made the mistake of pegging it to a specific time, and I ask, is it for a specific reason?

I was talking to the old boss the other day, and he mentioned his theory on oil prices, that the futures markets are currently being manipulated by petrodollars...an interesting hypothesis.

And of course, this would require help, help from spin doctors who can claim the title of "analyst" and stir up certain perceptions. Its obvious Simmons has been wrong, RocDoc has already pointed out his ignorance on the basics of SPE papers let alone what is actually IN them, yet the guy keeps spewing like no one notices how inaccurate he has been. Unless of course, thats why he does it. Ruppert and Co. make great conspiracy theories on ANYTHING, whats wrong with an analyst trying to put a little coin in his pocket by arm waving until he is blue in the face, and then betting he's got lots of suckers who beleive him and will keep prices high, while he's betting futures contracts will go short?

[DoomersUnite]

And have you noticed that the abiotic oil theory-- which is truly crackpot-- isn't attacked by the respected cornucopians and the MSM as much as peak oil? Why is that? And even some of the respected peak oil debunkers, such as O'dell, have embraced the abiotic oil theory.

I haven't seen honestly smart people attack Peak oil, I figured the concept was pretty sound. I've seen them attack the TIMEFRAME of peak oil....completely different things I figure.
And why would any good optimist worry about abiotic oil? I'm guessing between aliens transmitting microwave energy to the Mojave and zero point energy, they've got a better way already figured out.

[DoomersUnite]

And $1/day is just a silly wage, and presupposes like a complete destruction of most modern economies, which, wihle amusing to those of us ready for it, is highly unlikely.

Actually, 1 silver dollar a day was the average wage before we went off of the gold standard and destroyed our currency. Once we go back to a real currency, based upon gold/silver, 1 dollar a day should once again be the average wage in america.

I haven't noticed any destruction of currency. I take out some paper, hand it to someone, they hand me something back. Seems like its been working for at least a few decades alright. I figure ammo and MRE's are going to be the real valuable items, after the rolling blackouts and breadlines and riots and stuff really get rolling.

[Eman_0417]

Yergin's lastest comments on "his day" "The oil price has become a register of geopolitical tensions and fears," said Daniel Yergin, who heads Cambridge Energy Research Associates. Yergin said petroleum supply-demand fundamentals are improving, with global oil inventories and spare oil-production capacity rising, but clearly not enough to offset the geopolitical unrest.

The surge in oil prices rattled stock market investors, sending the Dow Jones industrials sharply lower for the second straight day. Shares of Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's largest retailer, slumped 2 percent on the New York Stock Exchange on concerns that high energy prices are cutting into consumers' discretionary income. "The economy took $50 oil in stride," Yergin said. "It's clearly not taking $70 or $75 a barrel in stride. This is a rougher adjustment."

[markam]

I haven't noticed any destruction of currency. I take out some paper, hand it to someone, they hand me something back. Seems like its been working for at least a few decades alright.

The average salary in 1900 was around $400. The average salary now is something like $36,000. This difference is not because we have become fabulously wealthy compared to 1900. The two salaries are basically the same, it is the destruction of the US currency that makes todays salary so much higher.

Currency destruction by increasing the money supply takes wealth away from the poor and middle class, and transfers it to the wealthy. It has been going on for 80 years and is accelerating. Why do you think that every currency in history, not backed by precious metals, has eventually collapsed. Ours will also, probably in the next few years.

[ohanian]

Wednesday 1st December 2004 I wrote that ....
Gee, Look what the yahoo news brought in today. No need to worry! Mr Frederick P. Leuffer promises me my very own $20 per barrel oil for my bright future. Now, Mr Leuffer would not lie to me, would he?

link The recent retreat in oil prices reflects only a small pinhole in the oil bubble. Fundamentally, oil prices should be in the high $20-a-barrel range today, based on supply/demand economics and current inventory levels. Eventually, the barrel price should decline to the low $20s as oil inventories continue to build. The oil price still reflects about $15 a barrel of speculation.

The oil bubble will indeed burst. The inventory rise will continue, thereby justifying a lower price fundamentally and reducing the fear premium. Production should grow on schedule without major interruptions. The absence of a supply shock should also reduce speculation. Finally, a weakening price will feed on itself.

[rogerhb]

“Oil has become a proxy for geopolitics right now,” said Daniel Yergin, who heads Cambridge Energy Research Associates. Yergin said petroleum supply-demand fundamentals are improving, with global oil inventories and spare oil-production capacity rising, but clearly not enough to offset the geopolitical unrest.

Don't worry, it's just political.