Peak Oil is You

Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)

Page added on June 29, 2014

Bookmark and Share

Peak Oil Is Back!

Peak Oil Is Back! thumbnail

Secret Trade Memos, TTIP And Write-down Of Two-thirds Of US Shale Oil Explodes Fracking Myth


We will start with the punch line:

“According to a secret trade memo obtained by the Huffington Post, the Obama administration and the European Union are pushing ahead with efforts to “expand US fracking, offshore oil drilling and natural gas exploration”, as well as exports to the EU, under the prospective Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) agreement. The Guardian.

  Why nobody in mass media is really talking about it? You decide for yourself, we will give you just couple of thoughts and will present the brilliant article by Dr Nafeez Ahmed in full, people are lazy these days even to click through – and we are not even talking about some independent thinking here. Gold and Truth about Peak Oil are two major things exposing the Central Banks scam and Inflation tax on our societies, so expect the full blown attack on both to keep the status quo. For those who are quick to come to the conclusions on who is behind the assault on “100% Safe Fracking” we will start with:

NATO: Russian Spies Against “100% Safe Fracking”, Two-thirds Of US Shale Oil “Could Be Stolen By Chinese Hackers.”


Even Golden Bubbles Are Made Of Bubbles: Bitcoin Vs. Gold – Some Thoughts And Infographic.

“Some wise, but very dangerous men once said: “We will take the best out of Them, we will intrigue them by Enigma and Secret, we will make Them think that they are running the world … but it will be Us who is really in charge.” Do you see the historical parallels?“Brothers” are still in denial and Bitcoin “revolutionaries” are fighting the FED … 


Peak Oil Was Just Postponed – IEA Write-down Of Two-thirds Of US Shale Oil Explodes Fracking Myth.

“Jim Puplava has a very interesting discussion about Peak Oil on his Financial Sense this week.  You do not hear a lot in the mass media about the report on coming write-down by IEA of two-thirds of US shale oil reserves, but it is the really groundbreaking news exposing fracking hype and myth everybody should be worried about now. Peak Oil Is Back! You can find my own findings and how we are addressing this coming Peak Oil by building our International Lithium to make Electric Cars mass market possible one day below on the links. Please, enjoy: “Jim Puplava’s Big Picture: Peak Oil – Delayed But Not Resolved“:

“Jim’s first topic on the Big Picture this week is “Peak Oil – Delayed but Not Resolved”. Jim lays out the issue of Peak Oil in depth, and quotes studies that believe it could still arrive by the end of this decade. Jim also looks at the Shale Revolution in the US and discusses how long the shale story may delay the onset of Peak Oil. The next topic is “OPEC’s New Competition”. Jim looks at the geological and geopolitical constraints on OPEC and sees North America as a growing and viable competitor to OPEC’s energy dominance in the future. Jim Puplava.



The Guardian:
Write-down Of Two-thirds Of US Shale Oil Explodes Fracking Myth. 
Dr Nafeez Ahmed
Next month, the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) will publish a new estimate of US shale deposits set to deal a death-blow to industry hype about a new golden era of US energy independence by fracking unconventional oil and gas.
EIA officials told the Los Angeles Times that previous estimates of recoverable oil in the Monterey shale reserves in California of about 15.4 billion barrels were vastly overstated. The revised estimate, they said, will slash this amount by 96% to a puny 600 million barrels of oil.
The Monterey formation, previously believed to contain more than double the amount of oil estimated at the Bakken shale in North Dakota, and five times larger than the Eagle Ford shale in South Texas, was slated to add up to 2.8 million jobs by 2020 and boost government tax revenues by $24.6 billion a year.
Industry lobbyists have for long highlighted the Monterey shale reserves as the big game-changer for US oil and gas production. Nick Grealy, who runs the consultancy No Hot Air which is funded by “gas and associated companies”, and includes the UK’s most high-profile shale gas fracker Cuadrilla among its clientspredicted last year that:
“… the star of the North American show is barely on most people’s radar screens. California shale will… reinvigorate the Golden State’s economy over the next two to three years.”
This sort of hype triggered “a speculation boom among oil companies” according to the LA Times. The EIA’s original survey for the US Department of Energy published in 2011 had been contracted out to Intek Inc. That report found that the Monterey shale constituted “64 percent of the total shale oil resources” in the US.
The EIA’s revised estimate was based partly on analysis of actual output from wells where new fracking techniques had been applied. According to EIA petroleum analyst John Staub:
“From the information we’ve been able to gather, we’ve not seen evidence that oil extraction in this area is very productive using techniques like fracking… Our oil production estimates combined with a dearth of knowledge about geological differences among the oil fields led to erroneous predictions and estimates.”
The Intek Inc study for the EIA had relied largely on oil industry claims, rather than proper data. Hitesh Mohan, who authored the Intek study for the EIA, reportedly conceded that “his figures were derived from technical reports and presentations from oil companies, including Occidental Petroleum, which owns the lion’s share of oil leases in the Monterey Shale, at 1.6 million acres.” Mohan had even lifted his original estimate for the EIA to 17 billion barrels.
Geoscientist David Hughes, who worked for the Geological Survey of Canada for 32 years, said:
“The oil had always been a statistical fantasy. Left out of all the hoopla was the fact that the EIA’s estimate was little more than a back-of-the-envelope calculation.”
Last year, the Post Carbon Institute (PCI) published Hughes’ study,Drilling California: A Reality Check on the Monterey Shale, which conducted an empirical analysis of oil production data using a widely used industry database also relied on by the EIA. The report concluded that the original EIA estimate was “highly overstated,” and unlikely to lead to a “statewide economic boom…. California should consider its economic and energy future in the absence of an oil production boom.”
A spokesman for the Institute, Tod Brilliant, told me:
“Given the incredible difference between initial projections of 15 billion barrels and revisions to 600 million, does this not call into account all such global projections for tight oil?”
As I’d reported earlier in June last year, a wider PCI study by Hughes had come to similar conclusions about bullish estimates of US shale oil and gas potential, concluding that “light tight oil production in the USA will peak between 2015 and 2017, followed by a steep decline”, while shale gas production would likely peak next year. In that post, I’d pointed out previous well-documented, and alarmingly common, cases of industry over-estimates of reserve sizes which later had been questioned.
Analysts like Jeremy Leggett have said, citing exaggerated oil industry estimates, that if reserve and production reality are indeed significantly lower than industry forecasts, we could be at risk of an oil shock as early as within the next five years.
The latest revelations follow a spate of bad news for industry reassurances about the fracking boom. New research published this month has found that measured methane leaks from fracking operations were three times larger than forecasted. The US Environment Protection Agency therefore “significantly underestimates” methane emissions from fracking, by as much as a 100 to a 1,000 times according to a new Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study published in April.
The Associated Press also reported, citing a Government Accountability Office investigation, that the US Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management had failed to adequately inspect thousands of oil and gas wells that are potentially high risk for water and environmental damage.
Despite the mounting evidence that the shale gas boom is heading for a bust, both economically and environmentally, both governments and industry are together pouring their eggs into a rather flimsy basket.
According to a secret trade memo obtained by the Huffington Post, the Obama administration and the European Union are pushing ahead with efforts to “expand US fracking, offshore oil drilling and natural gas exploration”, as well as exports to the EU, under the prospective Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) agreement.
Dr. Nafeez Ahmed is an international security journalist and academic. He is the author of A User’s Guide to the Crisis of Civilization: And How to Save It, and the forthcoming science fiction thriller, Zero Point. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter @nafeezahmed.”


12 Comments on "Peak Oil Is Back!"

  1. rockman on Sun, 29th Jun 2014 2:25 pm 

    “According to a secret trade memo obtained by the Huffington Post, the Obama administration and the European Union are pushing ahead with efforts to “expand US fracking, offshore oil drilling and natural gas exploration”, as well as exports to the EU, under the prospective Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) agreement.”

    First, it wasn’t a “secret trade memo”. It was a draft of the proposed trade agreement that was leaked a couple of months ago. This is rather old non-news. The final approved memo was going to released to the public as planned.

    More importantly neither the US gov’t nor the EU drill and frac wells in the US nor drill offshore wells. The oil patch does and as the article itself points out we’re doing it big time despite their belief that “Despite the mounting evidence that…the shale gas boom is heading for a bust…”. So obviously the oil patch already has more than enough incentive.

    And as far as “…the Obama administration and the European Union are pushing ahead with efforts to expand exports to the EU, under the prospective Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) agreement.” More stupidity: the US is currently and in the foreseeable future a net importer of oil and NG including LNG. In reality the US is one of the major competitors with the EU for those commodities. If the US wants to help the EU with such imports the immediate action would be for the US gov’t to ban imports. But that would also put a crimp in EU refined product imports: U.S. fuel exports to Europe doubled between 2007 and 2012 as at least 15 inefficient refineries on the continent closed. Currently U.S. fuel moving across the Atlantic is about 7.5 BILLION gallons per year. And those fuels are refined in the US from imported oil…we import about 3 million bopd that we refine and export. Cut US oil imports and our European cousins have to reopen those 15 inefficient refineries.

  2. J-Gav on Sun, 29th Jun 2014 3:10 pm 

    My view of the TTIP, if for no other reason than the secrecy of the negotiations that have shrouded it from the beginning, is that it should be fought tooth and nail by all peoples concerned. But I’m not talking specifically fossil fuels here – much more is at stake.

    As for NG and LNG, as Rockman aptly points out, the U.S. is and will remain an importer. But the EU even more so! Wary of getting burned by pipeline politics, some European countries are already starting to try and line up increased deliveries of LNG. France for example … Shhh, nobody’s supposed to know.

  3. synapsid on Sun, 29th Jun 2014 3:16 pm 


    There’s a side issue to our European cousins reopening some inefficient refineries: Russia has been buying them up. Lukoil owns refineries in Italy, the Netherlands, Bulgaria and Romania; Rosneft has a JV with BP (I believe some Kurdish crude went there recently), though I don’t know if Rosneft has more.

    Russia has indeed been paying attention to where the levers are in EU energy supply.

  4. rockman on Sun, 29th Jun 2014 3:48 pm 

    Syn – Good point. I suspect this is one reason some in the EU are having tizzy fit over the South Stream Pipeline. With the line and the oil owned by the same organization they can do brother-in-law deals with the Russian refineries, sqz the margins out of the remaining EU refineries and run them out of business. And then really nail those EU hides to the barn door.

    At least that’s what I would do if I were Russia. Nothing personal…just business. LOL

  5. keith on Sun, 29th Jun 2014 3:52 pm 

    I wonder how much access to Mexican oil by American corporations has influenced the Obama’s admin. lack of border security. Getting rid of thousands of children makes less mouths to feed for the Mexican Government. Food for thought?

  6. J-Gav on Sun, 29th Jun 2014 5:05 pm 

    Yes! The comments above hit upon some European energy basics.

    When EU countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Austria, Italy, the Netherlands …) cut bilateral deals with Russia, it does show up one cruel but essential reality – the EU has NO unified energy procurement policy, not even the beginning of one! This situation won’t just magically go away. In fact, it may well get more acute and divisive in the coming years. Either the EU energy policy thinkers have been lazy, lax, bought-out or just plain stupid, or the
    national pressures are so acute that anything goes. Gotta keep up that guise of unity no matter what, though, eh?

  7. Makati1 on Sun, 29th Jun 2014 7:30 pm 

    keith, perhaps it is something else?

    Oil or ???

  8. rockman on Sun, 29th Jun 2014 9:02 pm 

    Keith – At the moment the US still has a good bit of leverage with México. First, they use about 25% of their oil revenue to buy refined products from US. If they withhold oil from us I’ll bet that flow stops also. Second, a good big of Mexican industry runs on imported NG from Texas. Switching to imported LNG from another source would take a long time with very big Infrastructures costs.

    IMHO México needs the US as much as we need them…maybe more

  9. rockman on Sun, 29th Jun 2014 9:12 pm 

    J-Gav: It’s difficult to not imagine the EU become more unstable as we stroll down the PO path. You can already see some of the countries trying to align themselves directly with Russia to avoid NG transit thru the Ukraine. The Ukraine is already something of a basket case with 100% of the transit fees coming in. Start losing a chunk of that significant portion of their gov’t and the internal hostility level in the EU is bound to increase.

    And now with the new trade agreement with the EU the Ukraine can avoid a lot of export tariffs which will make them more competitive with other European countries. Counties that have already begun to bankroll that competition with the big IMF “loan”.

  10. Plantagenet on Sun, 29th Jun 2014 9:40 pm 

    Its crazy for the Obama Administration to be boasting about “energy independence” and allowing US oil to be exported at a time when the US actually faces energy shortages due to peak oil.

  11. bobinget on Mon, 30th Jun 2014 8:28 am 

    With Jimmy Carter a single exception, EVERY US President has preached ‘energy independence’ by increased drilling instead of ‘just’ conservation.

    North Dakota, Oklahoma, Alaska and Texas have it,
    shoot, why not every state?

    No one complains when GE exports high pressure steam turbines, when First Solar exports entire turnkey
    power plants, Boeing, Big AG, are all exporting product
    that could never be manufactured (grown) with out oil and gas. So in the best sense of the word we already export plenty more oil then I’ve ever seen calculated.

  12. shortonoil on Mon, 30th Jun 2014 10:30 am 

    Peak Oil is Back – well, to tell the truth, it never left. Its has been been here for almost 10 years, and will remain until the world’s economy sputters to a halt. The announcement to lift the export ban for crude over API 45 is just another confirmation that LTO is not going to save our bacon, and that things aren’t well on supply street. This light, and ultra light crude just keeps piling up along the Gulf Coast. Refiners don’t want it because it produces very little of their bread and butter products; diesel, and kerosene. US exports of the two have grown over 350% in the last few years. It is more cost effective for the industry to buy Saudi crude (that produces what they can sell at a profit) than the paint thinner that comes out of the Eagle Ford. If the US is in a position were it is more cost effective to import other nations crude and sell its own, it is proof positive that the shale revolution is just a “retirement party”. That is what we have been saying all along! The base line in oil production is not the number of barrels, it is energy. Oil that can not produce what your customers want to buy is just black goo in a barrel. What customers want is energy that can power the world’s transportation machinery.

Leave a Reply

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