Remember these stories from yesteryear, from our friends on the left?
Monday, December 10th, 2007 @ 2:31 am | Energy, Peak Oil |By Jeromy Brown
As entirely expected here at Iowa Liberal, documented further by the New York Times:
The economies of many big oil-exporting countries are growing so fast that their need for energy within their borders is crimping how much they can sell abroad, adding new strains to the global oil market.
Experts say the sharp growth, if it continues, means several of the worldâ€™s most important suppliers may need to start importing oil within a decade to power all the new cars, houses and businesses they are buying and creating with their oil wealth.
Indonesia has already made this flip. By some projections, the same thing could happen within five years to Mexico, the No. 2 source of foreign oil for the United States, and soon after that to Iran, the worldâ€™s fourth-largest exporter. In some cases, the governments of these countries subsidize gasoline heavily for their citizens, selling it for as little as 7 cents a gallon, a practice that industry experts say fosters wasteful habits.
What I find unexpected is that 7 cent gas didn’t turn these countries into economic superpowers. When all is said and done, the potential of oil countries will have been mostly wasted. The wealth has gone everywhere but to the people that live there, and now that their economies are just barely getting afloat, sure signs of oil’s scarcity continue to pile up. As exporters turn into importers, the energy vacuum will start tearing eyeballs out of sockets Total Recall style.
Or this one?
Thursday, May 29th, 2008 @ 5:09 pm | Peak Oil |By Jeromy Brown
Oil Exporters Are Unable To Keep Up With Demand
Domestic Needs, Sluggish Investment Crimp Shipments
By NEIL KING JR. and SPENCER SWARTZ
The world’s top oil producers are proving unable to put more barrels on thirsty world markets despite sky-high prices, a shift that defies traditional market logic and looks set to continue.
Fresh data from the U.S. Department of Energy show the amount of petroleum products shipped by the world’s top oil exporters fell 2.5% last year, despite a 57% increase in prices, a trend that appears to be holding true this year as well.
There are several reasons behind the net-export decline. Soaring profits from high-price crude have fueled a boom in oil demand in Saudi Arabia and across the Middle East, leaving less oil for export. At the same time, aging fields and sluggish investments have caused exports to drop significantly in Mexico, Norway and, most recently, Russia. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries also cut production early last year and didn’t move to boost supplies again until last fall.
One prediction of Peak Oil theory is that oil-exporting nations will realize it is in their greater self-interest to keep and use their oil. Another is that output will plateau, and then decline.
This is our time to prepare
Sunday, January 27th, 2008 @ 11:02 am | Energy |By Thomas Tallis
Yet another granola-crunching moonbat yammering on about ‘peak oil’ and other liberal lies.
This particular science-disbelieving moonbat happens to be the CEO of Shell Oil.
Seven years, folks! I know there are some people who have this quasi-mystical idea that we can’t mess things up completely – that God will step in right at the moment of impending disaster, or that ingenuity will come into play just when things look darkest. Some people might call these thoughts “Hollywood fantasies,” and that’s one way of putting it, but the itch reaches back further than that. It’s the age-old need for a clean narrative that doesn’t end in one’s own demise. I have news for all y’all’s inner children.
Just because your need for a clean narrative is soul-deep doesn’t mean you’re going to get what you want. If there’s anybody who hears the CEO of Shell say “we’re gonna hit peak oil” and wants to go about debunking and offering alternate theories, let that person ask himself: if I know so goddamn much about oil, why am I not infinitely wealthy, like the CEO of Shell?
Or this one, from the least moonbatty of the Iowa Liberals:
Wednesday, April 11th, 2007 @ 9:08 pm | Energy, Middle East, National Security, Peak Oil |By Mike Ganzeveld>
Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to find a way to blame the following on liberals:
Finally, the future decline of Saudi production implies that peak total liquids is forecast to occur in mid 2009. This means that coordinated conservation plans need to start now.
Further evidence supporting Saudi Arabia’s production decline continues to emerge. The evidence is not only technical and economic, but also behavioural. The analysis of the further evidence, described below, shows that Saudi Arabia is highly unlikely to produce over 8.5 million barrels/day of crude oil and lease condensate, on an annualised basis.
Saudi Arabia is in decline now. This means that the world’s production is in decline now. Future supply will be unable to meet forecast demands. Governments, corporations and individuals need to start making coordinated plans to prepare for the decline in world production.
I think we all know who’s to blame for Peak Oil. Yeah, that’s right….Bill Clinton!
From CNNMoney, today:
by Ivana Kottasova | January 19, 2016: 6:03 AM ET
Can oil really go lower?
The answer from the International Energy Agency is an “emphatic yes.”
The world is “drowning” in oil, and weak demand has failed to match relentless pumping by the world’s biggest oil producers, the group said. With Iran planning to boost its production by as much as 1.5 million barrels a day by the end of 2016, the global oil glut will get even worse.
“The oil market faces the prospect of a third successive year when supply will exceed demand by 1 million barrels a day and there will be enormous strain on the ability of the oil system to absorb it efficiently,” the IEA said in the monthly oil market report.
There’s more at the original.
Now, “peak oil” should have been a very measurable thing; barring new discoveries, we should have been able to calculate when we’d just plain run down on oil supplies. But yet, all of those learned scientists, all of those oh-so-brilliant economists and statisticians and experts got it wrong.
And now we are supposed to trust yet another group of learned scientists and experts who are telling us that we are doomed, doomed! from global warming climate change, using calculations on forces which are not finite, like the oil supply is, and which are a lot more complicated, with many, many times more variables than the rate of petroleum consumption, and base our policies — and the impoverishment of the working class in the industrialized nations — on those projections.
I suppose that I could have looked up almost any liberal website from a decade ago, and found similar stories telling us how we just had to get off evil petroleum, because we were running out of the stuff. Now that no, we aren’t running out of oil — though eventually we will, but that’s a long time down the road — they have had to find another reason to try to eliminate the very fuel of capitalism.
Because, that, in the end, is the goal of the left. Capitalism, despite being the only economic system we have ever known which has lifted more than a tiny minority above the subsistence level, is just plain evil, because any system which allows some people to become winners allows other people to be losers, and somehow, that just isn’t fair.
There are no “participation” awards in the economy: you either succeed, or you fail.
It makes perfect sense to clean up after ourselves, and we would all love to see some sort of Star Trek future, where energy is unlimited and clean and there is no pollution anywhere, but that future hasn’t arrived yet. It makes no sense, no sense at all, to impoverish poorer Americans — the very people the left claim to want to help! — to push forward with policies which cannot be justified, based on technologies which do not yet exist.