What are Chevron and Shell trying to tell us

Shell and Chevron-Texaco are two companies that, I would argue, are precipitously close to acknowledging the peak oil problem.  Between Chevron-Texaco's "Will you join us" ad campaign which states:

"Energy will be one of the defining issues of this century.  One thing is clear: the era of easy oil is over. What we all do next will determine how well we me the energy needs of the entire world in this century and beyond.  Demand is soaring like never before.  As populations grow and economies take off, millions in the developing world are enjoying the benefits of a lifestyle that requires increasing amounts of energy. In fact, some say that in 20 years the world will consume 40% more oil than it does today. At the same time many of the world's oil and gas fields are maturing. And new energy discoveries are mainly occurring in places where resources are difficult to extract, physically, economically and even politically. When growing demand meets tight supplies, the result is more competition for the same resources.  We can wait until a crisis forces us to do something.  Or we can commit to working together, and start by asking the tough questions: How do we meet the energy needs of the developing world and those of industrialized nations? What role will renewables and alternative energies play?  What is the best way to protect ourenvironment? How do we accelerate our conservation efforts?   Whatever action we take, we must look not just to next year, but to the next 50 years."

...to Shell Director Malcom Brinded's recent comments that:

The challenges of supplying the expanding energy needs on which rising living standards for billions of people depend - while still preserving our environment - are increasingly apparent.  I believe they are among the greatest challenges ever  faced by mankind.
It should not surprise us that these two companies would be the first to break ranks with the oil fraternity and acknowledge the problem.  These are the two of the big multinationals who have seen their total daily production rates decline over the past 4 years.

Now we have to try to read the tea leaves here.  Remember that these companies are primarily responsible to their shareholders.  Not only that, but the leaders of these companies cannot break ranks with the fraternity easily without looking like left-wing fringe wackos to their peers.    My analogy is that these companies just decided they are gay, but they can't come out and tell all of their jock friends (e.g. Exxon, BP, Dick Cheney etc.) that they are gay.  However, they are starting to come out publicly and say gays should not be discriminated against.

On the other side of the coin, I met someone this week who also worked for one of the IOCs as a mid-level manager working on strategy and new business opportunities.  He had authored an academic paper, using exclusively non-proprietary public sources, on the high liklihood of an economic shock to the world's economy due to oil demand outrunning supply in the next decade.  The paper was submitted and accepted for publishing in an internationally known public policy journal.  

However, the paper was not approved for publishing by his company.  It is a shame too, as the paper is very good and well documented.  

I guess that most IOC's are not prepared to let the cat out of the bag yet.  They do not want any of their scientists or managers names publicly associated with the concepts supporting Peak Oil. Better to bury the evidence.

My questions are these:  Does anyone else know of any additional explicit statements by senior members of the oil fraternity that acknowledge peak oil?  And how can we use these and other statements to start to get public policy makers to begin to acknowledge the peak oil problem, because that is what we should be here for.

The "senior members of the oil fraternity" know damn good and well that peak oil is for real, their exploration people have been telling them so for years.  The exploration department of ExxonMobile has had seminars on it.  It must be something in the mindset of oil people to deny reality until the very end.  All you have to do is look at Dick Cheney.
I couldn't agree more.  I'm constantly amazed by how many people ask, with no apparent irony whatsoever, whether oil companies (as well as other big corporations) or national leaders/politicians know about PO.  

How the heck could they NOT know???  Yes, I'm sure there are a few clueless twits in high places who assume that current oil and NG prices are just a blip, and that things will soon be back to business as usual for the next century or so.  But the overwhelming majority of these people have to be aware of our collective energy situation, whether they're willing to acknowledge it publicly or not.

That would be "clueless twits" like Michael Lynch, Daniel Yergin (CERA), Lee R. Raymond (ExxonMobil), Steven Levitt (Freakonomics), Alan Greenspan, Claude Mandil (IEA), Ali Al-Naimi (Saudi Oil Minister), Peter Huber, every member of Congress except Roscoe Bartlett, the USGS, the EIA, Samuel Bodman (US Energy Secretary), etc.

So, I think our work is cut out for us.
I'm pretty sure Lee Raymond knows exactly what's happening.  He knows Exxon is good at oil, and pretty much not good at anything else.  So he's going to let other people spend the R&D dollars and make the mistakes, and when he sees a renewable solution that meets his ROI requirements, he'll be sitting on the world's largest stack of cash.  

He's just keeping his powder dry.

He's going to wait a long time.  I thought there is no renewable that has the ROI of just sticking a pipe into the ground.  After peak oil you actually going to have to spend money to make money.
"clueless twits" like Michael Lynch, Daniel Yergin (CERA), ...

I do not think it is fair to engage in name calling against all these people.

Some of them may have good intentions in their hearts.

The problem may be that they may lack proper "education" in in areas of science and how the world actually works.

The problem may be that some of them have been indoctrinated into the cult beliefs of the "economists" --that "supply" is a given and that people will "trade" in civilized manner rather than at the point of a gun.

If you think back to your higher education days, you may remember that not everyone enrolled in the "Rocket Scientist" program.

Maybe that Intro to Physics course convinced them they were going to pursue other interests or maybe the decision was made when they hit trigonometry in high school. I'm not making fun here. Hey, not everyone is a John Steinbeck either. We each have a limited set of talents.

Peak Oil is a fairly complicated subject to understand in full. It brings into play all sorts of tehnical and nontechnical issues. So here at TOD we some of the folks arguing over whether deep earth esterfication occurs in the presence of metal oxides (abioitc oil) and some folks arguing politics and some delving into the surreal world of economics.

It is kind of like rocket science.
You shouldn't t curse at folks  like Yergin, Greenspan and all just for not fully appreciating every aspect.

We are all here to learn.

"We are all here to learn"--Yes, we are all here at TOD to learn ;)

"clueless twits" -- I was quoting Lou. I myself would never call anyone that. I prefer terms like "myopic", which means "people who have their head up their ass".
Sorry for the "clueless twits" comment, everyone.  I was speaking sarcastically, probably more so than I should have.  It's one of the "cult beliefs" we economists hold dear, you know... <g>
Sorry, I don't share your charity toward these folks and their intentions.

I'm a mere English professor, yet I can clearly grasp all the details of peak oil and economic theory without a good basis in math.

All the men cited above are far more educated and experienced than I am.

I'm tempted to call them cynical monsters, but I won't.

Oh, please don't, that might heart someone's feelings.

My temptation is to call these guys the inevitable (self)delusional result of contemporary neocolonialism. The same voodoo economics practiced over the third world now being projected upon us so that we stay in the Matrix... obviously we are supposed to be the next third world. Ironical isn't it?

Lou -

I couldn't agree more. I'm constantly amazed by how many people ask, with no apparent irony whatsoever, whether oil companies (as well as other big corporations) or national leaders/politicians know about PO.

How the heck could they NOT know???

How can you reconcile this supposed insider knowledge with the fact that oil futures prices remain low? Wouldn't you expect insiders to want to make enormous profits between now and 2010 by using their inside knowledge to load up on oil futures?

As an economist you are aware that one of the benefits of futures markets is that they take private information and make it public. There are any number of ways for these insiders to profit from their knowledge, but these actions will collectively drive up prices and thereby expose the reality of future shortages for everyone to see.

I don't see how an economically literate person can believe that there is widespread insider knowledge of a hard Peak Oil scenario in the next five years, given the price information presently available from futures markets. There is just no way we could have such low prices, if that many people knew this supposed truth.

How do you explain it?

Yes, in theory you could go and start buying futures in the hopes of making a fortune. The problem is that if there is a major economic downturn, then demand could fall along with prices, and you could lose your shirt.
Everyone knows the geological truth but noone knows how the market will react. Oil is not an ordinary commodity and everyone knows that.
I suggest that there is a great chance of market failure so huge that all futures are rendered void and some kind of rationing is imposed. There are many scenarious including severe recession and a price drop afterwards.
You're assuming "markets" will respond according to "rational," economic "theory" and not according to human depravity, selfishness and fear.
I suspect that many insiders "know about PO" and understand that oil depletion is inevitable. But what do they or we really know? Though I see it coming, I don't know how this depletion is going to play out. When will oil peak? Will we have a steep decline or less painful plateaus? Will there be unrest, disorder, (more) rioting, (more) war or (more) economic collapse? Will there be a meaningful shift to alternative energies?

I'd expect that there is a wide range of beliefs and probably some skepticism among futures traders, and from what I've read, many of them aren't as inside as they think.

Regarding the original question - the paper by DOE researchers earlier this year suggesting that we should prepare for post-peak was the first crack in the US gov's sunny outlook, and should be included even though not put out by industry.

It would be interesting to compare the backgrounds of the various CEO's. It would make sense for those promoted through the economics chain of command to think price and tech will solve supply, while those with a geology background will be well aware that oil has become very tough to find even with the latest very high tech.

What they actually do is quite telling - buying back shares instead of investing in finding new oil or new infrastructure is so well known that even top Republicans are noticing and (publicly!) complaining. Oil company defense (BP, XOM) is the worry that prices will fall, but is this what they really think?

On a different tack, most traditional economists believe in markets, except when they don't like the result. Many such ascribe current oil prices to fear rather than supply and demand. But producers are frantically producing every barrel they can, and every barrel produced is bought. Storage is a little high as we approach the northern hemisphere winter, which may be a good thing. If winter is mild prices might fall - would this be because of less fear or less demand? Clearly, it would be less fear of winter.

The idea of gathering such papers and articles by oil insiders as can be found is a good one.  Probably such information will be a bit scarce, but maybe enough to build a story.  But it is in the actions that we shall really know what is in their hearts, and this is for me the best evidence.  This is true of both governments and companies.  The only problem is in interpreting these secondary bits of information.

However, it is strange how people cannot seem to resist publishing things that you would think they'd want to keep hidden.  Perhaps they think that only those "in the club" will notice.

Publishing these messages is as safe as instructing your 2 years old child how to build a nuclear bomb.

The simple truth is that the majority of people do not want to hear about bad times in the future, the reality is too harsh to deal with. So when faced with these messages the percentage of the people who stop and think about the consequences is statisticaly insignificant. The cheerful crowd that both politicians and businesses desperately need will keep on cheering until something truly rude happens. The purpose of these messages is to act as an indulgence after "the shit hits the fan" - well, we told you so but nobody would listen.

Don't forget BP (a company showing slightly increased production in the graph linked in the story above).  At least here in the US they're running TV ads about our energy future, one of which includes a "man on the street" segment in which a man talks about how the people running these companies have to know that the oil won't last forever, and that they have to be looking for the next thing.

I forget the exact words from the ad, so I'm not sure if the man on the street is talking about just oil companies or large companies in general.  I also don't remember the exact phrase he uses about oil supplies--I'm tempted to say he actually talks about oil "running out", but I wouldn't bet my keyboard on it.

Whatever the wording, the message is very loud and clear.

But there is doublespeak coming from BP. Lord Browne, chariman, made news when he said that oil would remain over $30 (it was $55-ish at the time). He was then, and maybe still, only big oil person to acknowledge that oil may stay over $30. (!)

Alas, the lord has backtracked. From the BBC:

"The chief executive of BP, Lord Browne, has said that crude oil prices are "unsustainably high" and will fall as consumers seek cheaper energy sources. ... But the BP boss said an increase in the amount of oil being pumped would eventually force prices down. In the longer term, the availability of cheaper energy sources would force prices down further, Lord Browne added.

Speaking in Singapore, Lord Browne said members of the Opec oil producing cartel would ultimately determine how far prices fall, but added that many leading producing nations believed prices should settle at about $40."Our view is that the price of oil is unsustainably high and will come down," he said. "People don't like to be held to ransom." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4406054.stm

So BP sees it as a morality play: OPEC are kidnappers, and we need to decide whether we pay their ransom or not. Call a game theorist!

You will note, Rick, how nicely Lord Browne's remarks play together with HO's post today on IEA's power play to force the MENA (Middle East and North Africa--includes Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates) nations to raise their NOC investments now and allow the IOC's to do E&P there. We've found our culprit--let the scapegoating begin. So, if oil prices don't come down to that happy $40 dollar level, we'll certainly know who's to blame!

Beyond Petroleum? How about "Beyond the Middle East?" It should be noted that IEA represents the big consumer OECD/G8 nations and at this point should be considered their mouthpiece as regards future oil supply & demand.
Those BP ads really irritate me. The people who are being "interviewed" seem to be rather uninformed. I imagine that they are really scripted, but the cluelessness exibited by these people is probably comparable to the cluelessness of the general population. There was one with a woman who whined about how giving up oil would be like giving up chocolate, and that would just be too hard.
I share your "irritation".
BP seems to have picked those interviews that validate ignorance.
You see someone else who admits to not knowing and being OK with it because the smart folk at the Big Oil companies are taking care of it. It almost validates the act of remaining ignorant.

According to BP, their ads are for real:

BP --> http://www.starttalking.com/ --> first episode, Jeremy Legget --> Peak Oil is Nigh..

About the same site as willyoujoinus only less massive and with tv stuff.

By the way all the energy-parlament guys in Holland know about peak oil. Probably they do not know what it enholds, might be interesting to see the upcoming elections (2007/2008), energy will be a BIG issue.

"By the way all the energy-parlament guys in Holland know about peak oil.
.I don't doubt that. The EU is talking about this in the guise of the Global Warming and Kyoto Treaty. The emission quotas and trading system is essentially a way of rationing energy in the EU.

But the problem is more like when they think the Peak Oil will come - in 20-30 years or pretty soon. And what really should be done. It seems that they have aligned fully with the US in a bid to control the ME oil. If this is the real line, so beware. But of course, what better could they think of?

In response to TI: "But the problem is more like when they think the Peak Oil will come - in 20-30 years or pretty soon."

Yes, I think even amidst all the concern about global warming, there are several camps. Some take it as an imminent threat, others take it as a long-term (but still tangible) threat. Peak Oil fits easily into this framework.

I'm keeping an eye on a few litmus-test issues, with reference to little Lithuania. How the EU deals with these issues tells me something about which way the wind is blowing. 1) One of Chancellor Schroeder's last official acts was to sign a document with Russia, opening the way for a pipeline to be built on the floor of the Baltic Sea, thereby bypassing all those pesky Poles and Ukrainians and [fill in the blank with other Eastern European peoples]. This, despite all that World War II-era ammunition that was dumped overboard by the British, Russians, and Americans. 2) In accordance with its EU accession agreements, Lithuania shut down one of its two RBMK-type reactors in 2004; the other is due to be shut down in 2009, if I recall. This, despite the fact that losing both reactors means losing about 80% of domestic electricity production.

I'm sure people in other European countries could point to similar Peak Oil-relevant canaries in the coal mine, so to speak. What the EU actually does on these issues will speak volumes on what policymakers really think, and what they are willing to do to deal (or not to deal, as the case may be) with Peak Oil.

Bulgaria also had to close 4 BBER reactors (2 in 2004 and 2 in 2006; 440 MWt each - producing about 20% of the country electricity).

My hope is that the coming energy crisis will allow these countries to renegotiate this and reopen the reactors (as far as I know this is technically OK). When people start to feel the cold they tend to become more pragmatic; my hopes are also connected with the change of political leadership in Germany.

An article about the expansion of biodeisel production in todays Des Moines Register

"In 2004, the industry produced less than 30 million gallons. In comparison, 47 billion gallons of conventional diesel was used on roads nationwide.
But this fall, at least 100 biodiesel plants are either in operation or in various stages of planning and construction in 34 states, according to MARC-IV Consulting, a firm that tracks the market for the National Biodiesel Board.
When completed, these plants will be capable of producing more than 800 million gallons of biodiesel a year. That will nearly fulfill the demand created if all conventional diesel is mixed with 2 percent biodiesel - but whether truckers and others will buy that much is in question."

I wonder if this will actually be a problem:
"Some agriculture leaders are concerned the industry could be growing too fast, outpacing the market for biodiesel or the supply of raw materials."

You can see it coming: "Contains 2% biodiesel!" That's worse than HI-C and Hawaiian Punch with their 10% fruit juice claims.
Bubba said:
My questions are these:  Does anyone else know of any additional explicit statements by senior members of the oil fraternity that acknowledge peak oil?  And how can we use these and other statements to start to get public policy makers to begin to acknowledge the peak oil problem, because that is what we should be here for.

Some companies have been more forthcoming about non-opec peaking than world peaking. I'm sure policy makers can join the dots re the unattractiveness of relying increasingly on the middle east for oil.

Exxon president predicts non-OPEC peak in 10 years:
(I wished the graph below had folded OPEC condensate into the rest of the OPEC production - it is a bit misleading as it is.)

Francis Harper (BP exploration consultant) has given 2010 as a non-opec peak date. He did not specify a world peak date, but gave a URR value of 2400 bbl which implies a peak before 2020. He also makes an interesting comments on the pessimist vs optimists debate inside oil companies.

[Harper] said: "When the world peaks isn't the critical thing. What's more salient is when non-OPEC oil peaks, then you'll have the control of marginal production passed back to a progressively smaller group of countries."

He added that oil companies' public positions on the issue masked debate within them. "There are people in BP who happen to be economists and so happen to think there's no problem, and there are people in BP who are geologists who are saying it's getting hard to find."

My comment relates to what the IEA said recently: We must cut emissions; we must increase investment in fosil fuel extraction and processing to avoid having less in the future, http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1107-03.htm

I like to adjective myopic used earlier to describe this thinking.

At a conference last Saturday regarding Oregon and its ocean, I brought up the fact of increasing acidification of the oceans, its implications, and challenged anyone to connect the dots as to what must be done to reverse this suicidal trend. And although there was a new perspective announced saying that all stakeholders now agree to a holistic approach acknowledging 90% of land-based pollution finds its way to the ocean, no one openly admitted that CO2 from cars is the most easily reduced variable.

It will be interesting to see what the reactions are to such things at the Denver conference.  

Global greenhouse gas emissions will rise by 52% by 2030, unless the world takes action to reduce energy consumption, a study has warned.
The IEA warns that energy consumption must be reduced.
The prediction comes from the latest annual World Energy Outlook report from the International Energy Agency (IEA)

This is very troubling news, especially because it is in line with what Chevron's WillYouJoinUs predicts:

By 2020, some experts predict the world's energy consumption will be 40% higher than it is today.(4) Efficiency, improvements, and conservation are part of the solution, but will not, in themselves, meet the need for more energy.(5)

Despite Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Alpha and recent tornadoes in the MidWestern U.S., mainstream media (MSM) remains amazingly mum in connecting the dots. Their ineptitude over the Iraq war lies is dwarfed by the target miss over what this news about accumulating CO2 emissions means. Iraq 2000-2005 may have been the story of the decade. But CO2 up by 50% is the story of the century. (How can they, the media, be such "clueless nitwits"? --Sorry)

The 50%-up statitics are, of course, misleading. When it comes to Global Warming (unlike Peak Oil), it is the total accumulation of CO2 rather than yearly rate of emission that counts. Does anyone know of models out there that can predict where we will be on the GW timeline if CO2 emission rates continue this way?

It's entirely possible that the cornucopian camp may be twits, but are actually neither clueless nor myopic. They may simply be lying to serve their own ends.

Leo Strauss, University of Chicago philosopher, neocon muse, and tutor to Paul Wolfowitz, believed that deception was useful if not essential to ruling. Machiavelli held the same opinion several centuries earlier.

We have plenty of recent corporate and political precedent for this. Remember the heads of the big tobacco companies swearing, to a man, that smoking did not cause cancer? And every recent corporate financial scandal has a group of fibbers. Since Martha Stewart went to jail for lying, we can assume it's even a tasteful activity.

The cornucopians may just be doing what so many others seem to do, and willfully bending the truth.

The cornucopians may just be doing what so many others seem to [be doing], ... willfully bending the truth [to serve their own selfish interests].

In other words, they are doing exactly as they have been taught to do by the fundamentalist mullahs of the Adam Smith religion.

Each is clawing away in a direction he believes to be in his own self interest. Each is succoring favor from a more powerful master in hopes of some trickle down largess.

It is through this greed-driven frenzy of truth-bending, borrowing and burrowing (and oil drilling) that the "Invisible Hand" comes to life and invaraibly builds for us, a bedrock solid, Labyrinth of Prosperity  (warning some lem-head blog whoring with this last link)

And the irony is many if not most of these folks don't subscribe to the very Darwinian theory they are enacting.
There was a time when I was one of "them".
There was a time when I thought, "Ha ha, a bunch of Chick Littles".
There was a time when I thought, "We surely have 50-100 years of extra time and definitely technology will come through by then".

I'm not 100% sure what started my turn around.
I'm not 100% sure that PO is upon us NOW.

The point is, don't knock these other people just cause they have bad data inside their heads.

They are doing as they were taught to do, as they were "programmed" to do.

So, what do you suggest to do with "programmed" minds?
what do you suggest to do with [these] "programmed" minds?

None of us were born as "Peakers."

Once upon a time, many of us were one of "them".
Then something happened.
We got wind of the idea that something is not quite right in our utopia. We spotted a bug in the system. We started "thinking". We started "investigating".

Many here at TOD are so far down the road that we forget our roots. Once upon a time many of us were one of "them", the unware, the clueless twits.

If some Peaker had called you a turd blossom back then, what would your reaction have been? Think on it.

For me personally, the "bug in the system" was a chance run across Matt Simmons on CSPAN. He said something that kept my finger from hitting the surf-on button. What it was, I don't remember. After a while, the "Holy Shit!!" realization started to crawl across my mind. I'm sure for each of you it was some other chance crossing with a credible advocate of Peak Oil. Then there was denial, depression, and all those other human reactions to distressing news.

We have to politely chip away at those other "programmed minds" until some unexpected aha breaks through their barriers.

I grew up on the coastal plains of Texas; my family has always gotten a little money from decades-old oil and gas leases.  A $40 check here, a $25 check there.  We always knew there was more in the ground within our mineral rights, but no one wanted to develop it because it was too expensive relative to other sources.  That knowledge fed my belief that there was plenty of higher-dollar petroleum around, and that we'd still have plenty for a long time, even if it cost $50/barrel.  I started moving toward the peak oil camp when I learned two things:

  1. The role of supergiant fields in the world production mix.  Once I realized that you simply can no longer replace Ghawar, or Cantarelle, or Bergan, or East Texas, or hell, even West Columbia which I still drive past on the way to my parents' house.   That led my to my second realization...

  2. There might be a whole lot of $50 oil, but by the time we get to it, people (oh, say the Chinese, or the Indians, or people who need certain plastics a hell of a lot more than I need gasoline) might be willing to pay $100 or more for it.  And the Chinese (and the Indians, etc, etc) can afford to pay that kind of money for oil and still grow their economies, whereas ours will go into a best-case 5-year recession in that situation.  That was when I started being more willing to listen to the 'peak oil doomsday freaks' and started looking for ways to batten down the hatches.
"You shouldn't t curse at folks  like Yergin, Greenspan and all just for not fully appreciating every aspect."

I've heard that Mr. Greenspan, as the Fed Chair, can instruct the CIA to collect information for the board's deliberations.  I'm not sure about the board's (or the Chair's) clearance, but one supposes that this gives him the best data that money can buy.

briefly... the futures markets are wild because
the information is available to a priority class.
Big bucks, and the B.B's act at will to preserve
B.B's self interest. Cooked books derivived from
smokin (illusion is the greatest weapon)spank me,
get out of my way... actions.

I lose 95%, er truthfully  more like 99.999%
the time, because.... Unlike B.B's

I am a speculator!!!
AND my vision may be correct and clear on a commodity
but, again I am a speculator up against the HUGE
Hedge funds and Commercial giants. BIG BUCKS RULE!

Next... B.B's are privy to Information.
Perhaps B'B's have already given up on the masses.
The  jumbo jet is on automatic pilot, as the captain and crew have golden parachuted. Captain returns to his
bunker with his favorite friends. Soon the Airliner
empties its fuel tanks as the passengers cluelessly
circle in an ever higher climb.

Crash and burn = less demand = pity = come out,
come out wherever you are.
So sad the sun does not shine the same, and all that time beneath a rock.
Mother natures one, two combo punch...ouch
Global warning er , warming ...
little bit to late...sucker

Think small, think fast, peace

With respect to big oil talking about Peaking:


This discusses an ExxonMobil report that has non-OPEC peaking in 5 years.  I have verified through one of my connections that they (ExxonMobil) are serious about this.


I found this on www.321energy.com, they kinda make a good argument. Now, could someone please explain why he's full of it? or at least debunk this?

I understand the premise that there is oil, it'll just be more expensive to find and produce. Thus we'll have to adapt or else!

they [Lynch] kinda make a good argument.

So you mean ... the Earth is not a sphere of finite volume?

So you mean ... oil companies are stupidly marching their rigs deeper and deeper out into the ocean when there are these unlimited reserves of onshore oil, in full contradiction to Hubbert's curve?

Damn, why didn't somebody tell us?
Hey peakers, pack it up and go home. You were worrying for naught. Happy times are here again. Why just the other day my local gas station offered me free glasses if I filled'er up on that 20cents a gallon Esso stuff.

(When reading Lynch and his ilk, keep in mind one additional frame of reference, Lynch has NO FACTS to support his irrationallly cornicopian point of view. No one is discovering giant elephant fields. The age of exploration is over.)

Step Back: Regarding your question posted 4:40 am Tuesday, about a relation between global temperatures and greenhouse gas concentrations, you might want to look at the following from Columbia University's Lamont Doherty Observatory:


The Lamont Doherty website is a great reference for information on global warming, containing references for scientists and non-scientists alike. Note that they also cite references for papers that would seem to imply faster rates of change than this, notably a paper by Tom Wigley and Sara Raper published in Science Magazine on 7/20/2001 (subscription required). I cite this paper because references to it indicate it is a survey article that would seem to have evaluated the predictions of many other scientists and noted a consensus trend. (On the other hand it is almost five years old).


That particular slide was unavailable when I tried.
However the other slides are interesting:

I guess we should be building wind farms in Central America to tap all that wind energy.