Peak Energy? What Peak Energy?

Willful economic illiteracy

Nice propaganda, shame about the truth.

Nice propaganda, shame about the truth.

One of the other lies told by Watermelons – when they’re not bleating about the fast-fading ‘crisis’ of “Man-Made Global Warming” – is that the earth is fast running out of scarce resources. “Even if AGW isn’t quite as true as we pretended it was a few years ago, that’s still no excuse for not taking radical action to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels,” they claim.

Isn’t it?

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (Happy anniversary, GWPF!) has collated several pieces which offer a helpful counter to this hackneyed, and too often unquestioned, eco-fascist narrative.

Here’s the New York Times: (And would Pravda lie to you about a story so very much counter to its preferred ecotard narrative?)

Just as it seemed that the world was running on fumes, giant oil fields were discovered off the coasts of Brazil and Africa, and Canadian oil sands projects expanded so fast, they now provide North America with more oil than Saudi Arabia. In addition, the United States has increased domestic oil production for the first time in a generation.

Meanwhile, another wave of natural gas drilling has taken off in shale rock fields across the United States, and more shale gas drilling is just beginning in Europe and Asia. Add to that an increase in liquefied natural gas export terminals around the world that connected gas, which once had to be flared off, to the world market, and gas prices have plummeted.

Energy experts now predict decades of residential and commercial power at reasonable prices. Simply put, the world of energy has once again been turned upside down.

Here’s CBS on the vast reserves of natural gas now being extracted from shale:

“In the last few years, we’ve discovered the equivalent of two Saudi Arabias of oil in the form of natural gas in the United States. Not one, but two,” Aubrey McClendon, the CEO of Chesapeake Energy, told “60 Minutes” correspondent Lesley Stahl.

“Wait, we have twice as much natural gas in this country, is that what you’re saying, than they have oil in Saudi Arabia?” Stahl asked. “I’m trying to very clearly say exactly that,” he replied.

Does any of this sound to you like evidence that the world is facing the kind of energy crisis which can only be solved by concerted government intervention?

Me neither. One of my many beefs with the green movement is its wilful economic illiteracy. I say “wilful” because I can see no other explanation – except, possibly, arrant stupidity – for the way it so determinedly avoids all the lessons of history which show how infinitely adaptable man is and always has been in the face of “scarce resources.”

Man did not stop building wooden ships because of a shortage of trees. He stopped because he had developed the technology to build ships made of steel instead.

Man did not stop using horse drawn transport because of a concerted government campaign to reduce the piles of steaming horse manure in our cities by introducing a special Equine Transport Tax. He did so because private entrepreneurs invented the internal combustion engine.

Yet the energy policy of statist buffoons including Britain’s very own Huhne the Ecoloon is predicated on precisely this wrong idea: that it is a government’s job to force free citizens kicking and screaming in the direction of inefficient “renewable energy” through such distorting mechanisms as the “feed-in tariffs” (tacked on, by government diktat onto your gas and electricity bills) which have already proved such a disaster in Spain and Germany.

So lets, recap: the reason your energy bills are getting more and more expensive on the verge of what is widely predicted to be yet another obscenely cold winter is 1. to deal with a problem that doesn’t exist (AGW) and 2. to deal with another problem that doesn’t exist (wholly imaginary fast-depleting resources that must urgently be preserved through government intervention).

Related posts:

  1. Peak oil really could destroy the economy – just not in the way greens think
  2. Wind Industry Big Lies no 1: fossil fuels are more ‘subsidised’ than renewables
  3. Climategate: peak oil, the CRU and the Oman connection
  4. Simon Singh’s for the joy of solar energy

Posted on 23rd November 2010Author jamesCategories Blog

10 thoughts on “Peak energy? What peak energy?”

  1. Groper says:24th November 2010 at 12:03 pmWow, what a poorly researched article. For starters Delingpole, peak oil is when demand outstrips supply. And there may be a lot oil left in the world, to last us 100s of years more, but the extraction methods are getting more and more expensive, to the point where it may not be cost effective. Next time, do a little research before pouring hate on a subject you don’t understand.
  2. barbarausa says:24th November 2010 at 2:01 pmgroper, if the extraction were more expensive than the product is worth, it wouldn’t be happening.

    Except, of course, with things like renewables–still really in their technological infancy–and subsidized out the wazoo for the sake of a worldwide state religion.

    Article in the Washington Post:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/22/AR2010112207583.html

    Our country spent $2.9M of the multimillion “stimulus” (known fondly here as “porkulus”) to retrain people for “green jobs” that would magically appear…when the government created them through regulation and fiat.

    They seem to keep forgetting that “creating” a government job isn’t really job creation, it’s tax and debt creation.

    Read the article. There aren’t “green” jobs for the reeducated to plop into.

    Mr. Delingpole, I realize that Thanksgiving is an American holiday, but one of the things I shall be giving thanks for tomorrow (after I’m done cooking!–pumpkin pie in the oven, vegetables and sausage for the stuffing up next, then start the stock pot) is you, your work, and that of others like the fine Mr. Watts at WUWT, and so many more who work to explode the newest myth of fear and control.

    Please keep up the good work, and thank you.

  3. Groper says:24th November 2010 at 2:12 pmAre delingpole’s acolytes that backwards? Fossil subsdies worldwide is 10 times the amount to renewables. Governments spend a little on it and all of a sudden it’s a watermelon conspiracy. Where does Delingpole want take us? Back to the days of our heavily subsidised coal industry? Remember Scargill and miner’s strike?
  4. barbarausa says:24th November 2010 at 2:41 pmRemember when there were manufacturing jobs in England?

    We used to produce things here too.

    Government jobs are not jobs. Try and understand the concept: the government has no money except what it takes in taxes. For government to “create” jobs, they need to take more taxes, or go into debt to do the “creating”.

    What happens when everyone “works” for the government? Where will the money to make it happen come from?

    As I said, read the article–fine quote on page 4, about it being a great prgram, but hard to apply in the real world. Well, yes.

    Supply and demand is king, and when an open market is suppressed, a “black” market will spring up if the demand is there.

    Look at prostitution and drugs–they will never go away, because someone is going to fill that demand, legally or otherwise.

    With our illegal immigrant situation in the US, we even have had black market housing: single family homes, in districts not zoned for multifamily occupancy, have become flophouses with small areas cordoned off inside by hanging curtains, and a dozen or more laborers occupying small houses in a cubicle living situation.

    Zoning enforcement scrambles to catch up, but the problem moves from neighborhood to neighborhood.

    With the crash of our economy, it has abated somewhat, but of course we have lobbying groups who want to continue to provide services to those here illegally.

    And it all costs, something which government in general does not understand because they do not produce, they simply have a magical checkbook of taxation.

    Read the article groper. What does it cost to create a false demand through regulation, and facilitate it with squads of new government employees?

    Stay tuned.

    From over here, it looks remarkable like the early stages of what’s unfolding so unpleasantly throughout the EU.

  5. Groper says:24th November 2010 at 4:51 pmYour article makes no sense barbarausa. There’s nothing false about energy. It’s a very real demand.
  6. barbarausa says:25th November 2010 at 12:37 amYes, energy IS a very real demand.

    “Green energy jobs” is a false demand, as green energy is in its infancy of scalability.

    The government is attempting to create a demand by regulating existing market energy into an unaffordable state, thereby attempting to make gren energy “competitive”.

    There is no demand for the green energy workers being “created” with tax dollars to fill as yet nonexistent green energy jobs.

    It makes quite a bit of objective sense.

    But religion is subjective, isn’t it?

  7. Velocity says:25th November 2010 at 8:47 pmSpot on James.

    Grouper here is another monkey from the shrill green empty brigade thinking Gov’t intervention improves anything. Fed up to the back teeth with greenies gobbing off about ‘peak oil’ etc I spent a month researching and found energy of all types coming out of our ears.

    Guess what the problem was? Not the amount of energy and known reserves, but the amount of energy strangled (legislated) by Gov’ts from being exploited.

    Everything Gov’t touches turns to crap. Take a look at Spains green energy experiment, just another reason they’re so friggin bust.

    We should be having a massive pig out on cheap, cheap, cheap plentiful energy if the free competitive market was allowed to work.

    Instead we’re being legislatively strangled and taxed-to-death by Gov’ts and monopoly energy companies and the stiff-the-consumer Gov’t-Corp fascism of regulators.

  8. Groper says:25th November 2010 at 10:47 pmVelocity, as usual, your post makes no sense. Brigades? Govt Corp fascism yadayada!! Sure, there’s plenty of oil around, nobody disagrees, but its the cost of extraction that Delingpole and yourself fail to understand. The deeper you go, the more expensive it gets, and extracting oil from tar sands etc is very expensive in itself.
  9. Velocity says:26th November 2010 at 7:20 pmGrouper

    Yep, i’ve done the maths on extraction costs because i like to know what i’m talking about, unlike someone we know. So here’s what you don’t know:

    The Saudis stick a straw in the sand and just suck. Cost of extraction, about $1.50 per barrel.

    Those offshore rigs in deep water, its a lot more needing deep wading wellies. Cost $3.50 per barrel.

    As you can see anytime the Arabs want to lay waste to the deep water drilling (competition) they just dump oil on the market and watch everyone squeem. But right now at $80 a barrel they’re laughing all the way to the bank, especially as they’re pumping at only 50% of capacity.

    But mans technology always gets better and always reduces cost. Unless you’ve got Gov’t that just adds regulation and strangulation of which areas you can and can’t exploit. So while the Arabs will always have the edge on cost there’s plenty of room for everyone (at least until hyper-deflation hits our economies over the next 5 years and reduces oil to under $10 a barrel).

    The point is Grouper you don’t have a point. Like all lefties you’re talking outta your arse not knowing how markets operate or that extraction costs are not getting more expensive (the exact opposite of watching any market will teach you). Market price is not set by production cost (try to work than one out Einstein).

    Gordon Brown as Exchequer sold our British Gold at $220 Oz, right at the bottom of the market. 10 years later he got booted out by the British public as Gold hit a then all-time peak of $1,200 Oz. That’s an inditement of socialists and just how much that rotting Scottish turd knew about economics.

  10. barbarausa says:27th November 2010 at 12:53 amgroper, you sound like the old robot on “Lost in Space”: “…it…does…not…compute…”

    I imagine things do “make no sense” if you are only prepared to believe things that coincide with your script(ure).

Comments are closed.

Climategate: Peak oil, the CRU and the Oman Connection

Andrew30 tells all

This is a guest post by contributor Andrew30 (whose full name I’ll give you when he reminds me via email). He put it up in comments but it’s so interesting it really deserves a blog all to itself).

Why would a Middle Eastern kingdom be funding a British Climate research business?

Oman has just completed a massive investment in LNG, and developed and installed new CO2 removal technology in their process; this lowers the carbon footprint of their gas. So using their gas to drive electricity generation will be less costly once CO2 is taxed.

They have no problem with this whole thing.

Saudi Arabia, who have oil and not so much gas, are in a different position, they have a problem with this whole thing.

Just an observation; a 4 degree rise in temperature in the Sultanate of Oman or Saudi Arabia would change it from really hot to really hot.

Maybe it is just good business.

http://www.omanlng.com/

Oman LNG L.L.C
Formed: Set up by Royal Decree in February 1994.
Location: Head office: Muscat; Plant: Qalhat near Sur (approx 340 km from Muscat)
Products: Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG).
Shareholders: Government of Oman 51 %, Royal Dutch/Shell Group 30%, Total Elf Fina 5.54%, KOLNG 5%, Partex 2% Mitsubishi 2.77%, Mitsui 2.77%, ltochu 0.92%.

The Climate Research Unit (CRU) in the UK was set up in 1971 with funding from Shell and BP as is described in the book: “The history of the University of East Anglia, Norwich; Page 285)” By Michael Sanderson. The CRU was still being funded in 2008 by Shell, BP, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and UK Nirex LTD (the nuclear waste people in the UK)

This is important to know, for two reasons.
Firstly, the key institution providing support for Global Warming theories and the basis for the IPCC findings receives funding from “Big Oil” and the nuclear power industry.

Secondly, the research from the institution which is perceived to be independent publicly funded research, is actually beholden to soft money, CRU is in fact a business.

The funders of the CRU are on the bottom of this page from their website:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080627194858/http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

So, there a business set up in the early 1970’s, so what?

I thought that this might explain a bit about how we got to where we are. I am not a conspiracy theorist but to me it looks like this may have been a very, very long term plan. Of course it could all just be coincidental, but it does seem to fit the observable information.

A few weeks ago I explained the apparent CRU fraud to a friend of mine, a believer in AGW; he said ‘Why would they do it?’ I indicated the Jones had received 22 million, etc, but he countered, ‘For a fraud this large, going on for this long, there would have to be billions of dollars to be made, not millions’. That made sense.

So I looked into it a bit. First this is no short term thing, it covers two or three decades, involves many countries and government on both sides of the isle, the US alone has had 4 different presidents and the UK a similar number of prime ministers, Canada the same. So is it not political in the partisan sense of the word.

If, and this is a big if, you make the assumption that the objectives were:

1. Provide a smooth replacement of the use of oil in power generation and transportation, so as to avoid a panic over Peak Oil.
2. Get people to buy into Nuclear Power so that base load electrical power generation would not consume the available fossil fuel supply.
3. Get the people to really want to pay for it all.

Note: The IEA put a date on peak oil production THIS WEEK, so if the CO2 scare does not pan out they are already starting to put the ‘Peak Oil’ story into play. It is also the 2020 date, why am I not surprised.

http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15065719

Then the following is not unbelievable.

The newer scrubber technology for coal fired plants was moving along well back then, and in fact today their scrubbers can remove pretty much everything except CO2. However there is really not much money in coal, it is abundant, easy to handle, local in most instance to the base load demand for electricity, and a coal fired power plant is not much more complicated, or expensive, then a good steam engine.

Since there was not enough money in coal it would not be financially rewarding to simply try to promote coal as a replacement for oil.

So they looked at the situation and realized that the difference between the different technologies to replace base load power generation was the amount of CO2 per kilowatt/hour.

At that point CO2 became the target. That happened sometime between 1985 and 1988.

Now, the environmental movement is comprised mostly of followers, you can look up ‘dihydrogen monoxide’ (water), on many occasions at environmental conferences comedians and light news organizations have managed to get lots of environmentalists to sign a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide. So apparently they do not do a lot of independent analysis before making a conclusion, they are mostly followers.

So if you need a large number of followers, there is a ready supply, but you need people, a few leaders, to tell the followers what to think. The followers do not need to, or perhaps even want to, know the reason or the facts; they just need something or someone to follow.

Now you gain control of a climate research business, and begin the task of demonizing CO2, you realize that it will take years but that is OK, there are billions of dollars waiting at the end. Slowly over time you manage to get control of the worlds climate data and begin adjusting it, you use what you have been told by the marketing people to present the information needed in as clear and scary manager as is possible. Remember the two biggest motivators are fear and greed, and in this case, because of the number of followers greed will not work. There are simply too many followers to pay them all off.

So there we have it, a campaign of fear, based on non-science emanating from a few leaders that ultimately drive the followers to do something that would just not have been possible after Three Mile Island.

They are marching in the streets of Copenhagen in support of nuclear power. They do not know this of course, but that is what the plan on the table says. Check it out, look at exactly what are the big technologies being pushed at the summit. I will give you a hint, it is not windmills.

They are also marching in Copenhagen against big business, while supporting one of the biggest businesses possible, the World Bank. Is it not strange that the Dutch Text looks to have the World Bank control the trillions being put on the table? So they are marching against exactly what they are supporting, they are simply followers.

Perhaps you can fill in the blanks between the possible objectives I mentioned earlier and where we find ourselves today. Fill in the blanks, connect the dots and follow the money. Look at the funders, how many are involved in delivery, support, financing and maintenance of the movement of liquid energy and the generation of nuclear power.

I do not think this was ever about the environment.

There are lots of other things that may tie into this, like GE buying and now selling a
TV network, they needed then but do not need it now, a bit of a stretch perhaps but GE is a big player in gas and nuclear power generation. Look around, there are others.

That said; I do believe that the world does need to move to nuclear power for base load power generation, and I do believe that the Peak Oil problem is a real threat to stability.

So I agree with the objectives and encourage the outcome, I just do not like them messing with the science and trying, nay succeeding, in conning the masses to agree to it all.

Perhaps there was someone inside the CRU that felt the same way; the means were wrong regardless of the merits of the objectives, so they let slip the package in the hope that someone could figure out what they could not just come out and say publicly.

This thing would not need thousands of scientists to be involved. All that was need was for one or two people in perhaps five or six countries to adjust the raw data. Anyone using the data when making a comparison to CO2 would find the results that had been seeded into the data. The scientists would not be aware that they were being played. They would honestly think that their conclusions were correct. Only none of their predictions would ever be confirmed.

All the papers that used the data, and all the papers that used those papers for support, would therefore be invalid. In the vast majority of the cases I would expect that the authors are without blame, they made no mistake. The mistake was encoded into the base data before they even started.

Only the ones that actually were in control of the raw data and making the ‘adjustments’ needed to know of the exact requirements of the adjustment needed to seed the outcome into the data. When a scientist begins to say things like “the data must be wrong”, or “our monitoring is deficient”, perhaps they might not have been in on the ‘adjustments’ and they are likely frustrated because their model ‘works’ for the past and recent past. Think “We can’t explain the lack of warming”, perhaps the author of that email could not, but perhaps someone else could.

It would only have taken a dozen people in just the right places, and remember it took years to pull this off.

So who might have put these people in just the right place all those years ago, and why?

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: the Fox connection
  2. Wow! UK parliamentary investigation into Climategate may not be a whitewash
  3. ‘Bow down to Peak Oil!’ says BBC’s Cthulu-worshipping Newsnight
  4. If Ben Goldacre thinks I’m a ***** what does that make him?

3 Responses to “Climategate: peak oil, the CRU and the Oman connection”

  1. Myrrh says:December 20, 2009 at 7:36 amI haven’t been able to check this out, but from discussions I’ve had even with scientists there is a complete lack of basic knowledge about CO2, that it’s heavier than air etc., I don’t think this is taught anymore, they actually believe CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere and that it can float out of jars..

    http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/global/globalwarming1.html

    And the wikipedia connection to spreading this by the CRU gang

    http://www.nationalpost.com/m/blog.html?b=fullcomment&e=lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor&s=Opinion

    There are more manipulations of temperature data bases as in New Zealand, Australia and Russia, and the New Zealand one goes back to the 80’s when Jim Salinger from the CRU went there and created a temperature graph.

    Maggie had a hand in this from the beginning I think, didn’t she set up the Hadley Centre? Changing the national temperature records, or rather manipulating them as the originals still exist in the countries I’ve mentioned, was intrinsic to the plan to make CO2 a scapegoat for her re trade union/miners and against the hippies anti-nuclear power stations campaign.

    Good luck.

  2. Helen Rollson says:December 20, 2009 at 1:37 pmThanks so much for connecting these final dots. Knew it had a lot to do with the push for nuclear power, money and UN stated desire for One World Govt with one bank one law one religion and of course peak oil rumbling around there, but unlike you not keen on nuclear, especially if energy expended plus risks verses energy output plus major risks, need I go into the (many) , as it takes a mountain to move/mine/produce a molehill of usable fuel, a heap more energy to build newnuclear power stations (which can be/are dangerous) and even more to decommission them, mining uranium produces poisonous radon gas, waste materials toxic tailings, spent fuel etc etc as well as leading to nuclear weapons proliferation ….. aha ….hence talk of nuclear weapons reduction push by world leaders lately ….. and as you indicated coal is abundant and easy to use/mine, setup and run technology simple and not so costly so not so much money to be made for the poor power companies to make.
    It won’t make you poor but it will make them poor.
    For us in Australia who don’t want or like the risk of even more weapon material on the market we can keep our uranium in the ground and be a bit poorer than selling it off or we can keep on selling our coal and firing the majority of our electricity stations as well as going solar if we liked. Gyess they’ll just start/have another scheme to scam us with.
  3. Helen Rollson says:December 20, 2009 at 2:14 pmThanks so much for connecting these final dots. Knew it had a lot to do with the push for nuclear power, money and UN stated desire for One World Govt with one bank one law one religion and of course peak oil rumbling around there, but unlike you not keen on nuclear, especially if energy expended plus risks verses energy output plus major risks, need I go into the (many) , as it takes a mountain to move/mine/produce a molehill of usable fuel, a heap more energy to build newnuclear power stations (which can be/are dangerous) and even more to decommission them, mining uranium produces poisonous radon gas, waste materials toxic tailings, spent fuel etc etc as well as leading to nuclear weapons proliferation ….. aha ….hence talk of nuclear weapons reduction push by world leaders lately ….. and as you indicated coal is abundant and easy to use/mine, setup and run technology simple and not so costly so not so much money to be made for the poor power companies to make.
    It won’t make you poor but it will make them poor.
    For us in Australia who don’t want or like the risk of even more weapon material on the market we can keep our uranium in the ground and be a bit poorer than selling it off or we can keep on selling our coal and firing the majority of our electricity stations as well as going solar if we liked. Gyess they’ll just start/have another scheme to scam us with.

    ps I forgot to use that other now over popular tactical weapon,….da dah ….Terrorists, Terrorism, the threat of weapons grade material getting into the hands of Terrorist States or worse rouge or state sponsered radical terrorists …whoops …did the cat pop out of the bag of trix …. oh Felix you wicked cat, when we practice to deceive, what a tangled web we weave.