Peak Oil: Pro and Con

Pro: Peak Oil is Happening and Oil Will Cost $180 a barrel by 2020

The IMF model predicts that growth in demand will put continual upward pressure on price, with the inflation-adjusted price of oil headed for $180/barrel by the end of the decade. According to their estimates, those price increases would be sufficient to keep global production increasing at about the same reduced rate we have seen since 2004.

...The IMF team propose modifying the Hubbert-Deffeyes model to allow for a response of supply to the price of oil, where higher oil prices will (with a lead time of 4-6 years) stimulate higher production levels. They combine this with a traditional model in which demand for oil depends on growing GDP and the price of oil. The model strikes a compromise between the EIA and Hubbert-Deffeyes approaches, and has a better track record than either in simulated out-of-sample predictions over the last decade. _James Hamilton

The IMF working paper (PDF) which predicts oil prices in constant 2011 US dollars to rise to $180 a barrel by the year 2020.

Image Source _ taken from IMF Working Paper PDF

Con: Why We'll Never Run Out of Oil

The notion that world oil production had reached its summit and would soon begin a decline -- bringing with it shortages, economic collapse, resource wars, and general ruination -- was in vogue not so long ago.

"Is global oil production reaching a peak?" asked the BBC in 2005. "We are approaching peak oil sooner than many people would have guessed," said The Houston Chronicle three years later. Two years after that, The New York Times reported on a group of environmentalists who "argue that oil supplies peaked as early as 2008 and will decline rapidly, taking the economy with them."

Government agencies also bought into the idea. In 2010, the U.S. Joint Forces Command warned that "by 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 million barrels per day." Just this spring, seemingly every other report warned that $5-a-gallon gasoline -- or worse -- was just around the corner, and certainly would arrive by summer.

Well, here we are at summer, 2012. The Chicago Tribune reports that the nationwide price for a gallon of regular "has fallen well below $4 a gallon." The term "peak oil" seems to have been completely forgotten. Not only that -- it is beginning to look as though the U.S. could largely cease to depend on the Middle East as its principal supplier.

The Washington Post reports that U.S. imports from OPEC countries have declined by 1.8 million barrels a day. Last year the top American source of crude oil by far was Canada, which supplies 29 percent of U.S. imports. By contrast, the No. 2 supplier, Saudi Arabia, supplies only 14 percent. "Production has risen strikingly fast in places such as the tar sands of Alberta, Canada," The Post says, "and [in] the 'tight' rock formations of North Dakota and Texas -- basins with resources so hard to refine or reach that they were not considered economically viable until recently. Oil is gushing in once-dangerous regions of Columbia and … Brazil."

But that's not all: "A host of new discoveries or rosy prospects for large deposits also has energy companies drilling in the Chukchi Sea inside the Arctic Circle, deep in the Amazon, along a potentially huge field off South America's northeast shoulder, and in the roiling waters around the Falkland Islands."

So what the heck happened? It's no great mystery. As supplies tightened and prices rose, producers were motivated to find new sources and develop new technologies. When you hear that only X trillion barrels of "recoverable reserves" of oil exist, remember: The term does not refer to all the oil that there is. It refers to those reserves that are neither too costly to tap at present, nor off-limits because of government policy. Both of those factors can change. _Alaska Dispatch

In a sense, both the "pro" and the "con" viewpoints are looking at much the same phenomena, and seeing a different future based upon what they see.

Both the IMF and Barton Hinkle clearly see that the Hubbert - Deffeyes - Campbell predictions of peak oil have failed. And both "pro" and "con" viewpoints perceive that higher oil prices lead to greater production of oil -- for various reasons.

And, interestingly, both viewpoints comprehend the eventual physical limits to large scale oil production -- the finite nature of the oil resource.

But, the IMF group thinks that there will be no valid substitutes for crude oil, so that as demand for energy rises, the price of oil will inevitably rise along with it. Barton Hinkle, on the other hand, thinks that ingenious humans will devise economical substitutes for crude oil which will allow economies to move relatively smoothly from one energy source to another.

Economist James Hamilton judges the IMF paper to be a useful -- but imperfect -- look at future oil prices:

My view is that the IMF researchers’ approach is clearly better than the simple Hubbert-Deffeyes linearization, but may still be subject to some of the other problems documented by Boyce (2012), as well as the familiar challenges of statistically distinguishing supply and demand effects. Notwithstanding, the IMF research should help raise awareness of an issue that remains underappreciated by many economists, which is that we will eventually reach a point, and may have already, at which quite significant increases in price and improvements in technology can produce only modest increases in production, or may be insufficient to prevent outright declines in annual crude oil production levels. _James Hamilton

In other words, both Hamilton and the IMF group think that we will see a "peak supply" in oil production before we see a "peak demand."

Barton Hinkle believes that we will see "peak demand" first, as a result of incoming substitute energy sources which become more economical than the most expensive sources of crude oil.

Al Fin energy analysts feel that whether we see "peak supply" first, or "peak demand," depends entirely upon political decisions being made in global governments and inter-governments. Political peak oil has always been a possibility, if governments and inter-governments prohibit the development of a wide range of economical energy sources.

But if humans can develop cleaner, safer, more affordable gen III and gen IV + nuclear reactors at all scales -- which burn 99% of nuclear fuel instead of the approx. 2% currently utilised -- the entire calculus of global energy balance suddenly changes. Particularly with the coming of an unconventional liquids boomfacilitated by high temperature industrial process heat from HTGRs -- which demolishes the EROEI boogeyman.

Political Peak Energy: Obama's America is Full of It

From nuclear to coal to oil to natural gas to oil sands to oil shale -- the Obama administration has pursued an agenda of energy starvation.

Democrats want higher energy prices mostly to make alternative sources of energy seem economical. That's a tall order....

The Obama administration's massive subsidies to "green" firms have produced more embarrassment than energy. Solar panel manufacturer Solyndra, which went bankrupt last September after receiving $535 million, has left behind an environmental mess. Eleven other subsidized firms are having financial problems and five have filed for bankruptcy, CBS News reported in January.

In his state of the union address this year, President Barack Obama cited battery manufacturer Ener1 as a government investment success. Ener1 filed for bankruptcy two days later...Mr. Obama's "investments" haven't been bad for all of us. Eighty percent of the firms that got DOE loans are run or owned by the president's financial backers, according to the Hoover Institution's Peter Schweizer. "Green Firms Get Fed Cash, Give Execs Bonuses, Fail," headlined an ABC News investigative report broadcast Tuesday.

In what was billed as a "major speech" on energy policy Feb. 23, the president pledged to make more such "investments."

The speech was remarkable for its mendacity. During the Obama administration, the time it takes to get a permit to drill in the Gulf of Mexico has nearly doubled. Leases to drill on federal lands in the West are down 40 percent. But Mr. Obama claimed credit for the recent rise in domestic production of oil and natural gas. This "couldn't be farther from the truth," said the president of the American Petroleum Institute. _Obama Energy Abyss

President Obama's policies have been hard on energy producers and suppliers. No one should be surprised at that. The US president is merely following through on his promises to bankrupt energy companies and cause energy prices to skyrocket, which he made before he was elected.

Mr. Obama's Core Self

Obama will soon be personally responsible for preventing some 2 million barrels per day of possible North American crude oil production from reaching the American economy. The U.S. currently produces only about 6 million barrels of domestic crude oil, so that would be more than a 30 percent increase in domestic production.

...Two millions barrels per day of oil production would affect not just the price of gasoline in North America, but also the economics of world oil production: The president is preventing the U.S. from increasing oil production by an amount nearly equivalent to Iran’s total oil exports.

...We are once again entering a period of scarcity, where slight fluctuations in demand or supply will have a disproportionate impact on gas prices — but this time the scarcity is largely the product of Obama’s policies. _Obama Choking Off Oil Production

The reality is that the Obama administration slowed the permitting process long before the spill happened. Rather than playing catch up, we're falling further behind. The American people and the oil and gas industry need certainty that energy independence, not politics, will drive our nation's security. _WSJ

Mr. Obama owes a lot to big money faux environmental lobbies and special interests. He promised to shut down coal companies, and he has delivered. He promised that energy prices would skyrocket and he has delivered. He promised truckloads of green nonsense, and he delivered.

“North Dakota oil producers were scheduled to feed the Keystone pipeline with 100,000 barrels of crude oil per day,” Dalrymple said. “Now we will not be able to supply the choice American markets because President Obama says he needs more time to study Keystone. The fact is he has had over three years to study this issue.”

The pipeline has been under federal review for years and a key State Department analysis said the project would have minimal environmental impacts. _TheHill

The oil and gas industry could be creating even more jobs if the United States had more of a pro-development policy for traditional energy sources instead of a government-driven, heavily subsidized, green energy approach. For example, energy consulting firm Wood Mackenzie evaluated the impact on production, jobs, and government revenues of implementing regulatory policies that support the development of oil and natural gas resources, including: a) opening federal land that is currently “off limits” to exploration and development; b) lifting the drilling moratorium in New York; c) increasing the rate of permitting in the offshore Gulf of Mexico; d) approving the Keystone XL and other future Canada-to-U.S. oil pipelines; and e) leaving regulation of shale resources predominantly at the state level.

Under a scenario that encourages the development of new and existing domestic energy resources, Wood Mackenzie estimates that by 2015 an additional 1.27 million barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) could be produced, rising to 10.4 million BOE by 2030. That would be a 47 percent increase over the estimated 2030 production levels under a current development path case.

Furthermore, under the new development path, there would be a potential increase of 1 million new oil and natural gas jobs by 2018, and 1.4 million new jobs by 2030, while adding cumulative potential government revenue of $36 billion by 2015, and nearly $803 billion by 2030. _American

A Remarkable Lack of Concern for America's Energy Future
A new report from the World Economic Forum (PDF) reveals that about 9% of new US jobs in 2011 were created by the shale energy revolution.

The report said the oil and gas industry contributed 37,000 direct jobs in 2011, which led to the creation of an additional 111,000 indirect jobs during the same period. It said the multiplier effect for solar and wind energy were lower during operation, but higher at up to 3.3 times during construction.

“We always suspected that energy had a vital role to play in the economic recovery but we were still surprised when the data uncovered the magnitude of the sector’s multiplier effects,” Roberto Bocca, head of energy Iidustries at the World Economic Forum, said in a release.

The domestic U.S. oil and gas industry is in the midst of the its biggest boom in a generation, with hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling technology unlocking billions of barrels of oil and decades’ worth of natural gas from previously untappable tight coal seam fissures. _Reuters via GWPF

The Obama administration has, of course, been trying to find a way to shut down as many forms of energy production as possible -- and to hell with jobs.

The oil and natural gas industry, one of the strongest job-creating sectors of the U.S. economy, has been unfavorably targeted by President Obama’s proposed 2013 fiscal year (FY) federal budget. To start with, Obama is proposing, for the fourth consecutive year, to repeal Section 199 of the “American Jobs Creation Act.” If enacted, this selectively punitive treatment would increase taxes on oil and natural gas companies by almost $12 billion over the next decade. It could possibly jeopardize some of the millions of American jobs supported by oil and natural gas producers and prolong the sub-par “jobless recovery.”

Overall employment in the U.S. economy still remains short by almost 5 million jobs, and more than 3 percent below the pre-recession employment peak in November 2007. But the oil and natural gas industry has added 34,200 jobs over that period and expanded industry employment by more than 22 percent. Oil and natural gas companies have been on a hiring spree, adding almost 100 new payroll jobs every day for the last year.

In contrast, job creation in green energy projects has so far been very disappointing. According to a recent Wall Street Journal analysis of $4.3 billion in public funding for wind energy under Section 1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, there were 36 wind farms that employed 7,200 American workers during the peak of their construction, or an average of 200 workers per project. Today, according to these companies and state and local government economic development officials, those projects employ only about 300 workers, at a cost to taxpayers of more than $14 million per permanent job. _TheAmerican

Obama's antagonism toward reliable sources of energy appears to be based upon at least two foundations: 1. A desire to please big money faux environmentalist supporters, who are pursuing an agenda of carbon hysteria, and 2. A desire to punish and discipline successful private sector enterprises, and to bring them more under the control of a bloated central governmental bureaucracy.

Anyone who has read Mr. Obama's first two autobiographies and observed his early career in community organising and political activism, will understand the man's antagonism toward capitalism, free markets, and any source of wealth and power creation which competes with a central, redistributive government.

Political peak oil. Political peak energy. Political energy starvation and economic hardship for everyone except political supporters...Perhaps American voters need to re-think the government they have chosen to represent them.

Of course, political peak energy is not limited to the US. It is rampant in Germany, the UK, and the EU as a whole. It has taken over Australia and occupies provincial government seats in Canada.

Parts of this article were excerpted from an earlier piece published on Al Fin blog

US On Track to Exceed Old Hydrocarbon Peak Production

The United States is on track to beat its previous peak production of oil, natural gas and natural gas liquids, according to an analysis by consulting firm PFC Energy.
The analysis projects that the United States will become the world’s top producer of those fossil fuels by 2020. Though Saudi Arabia will continue surpass it in oil production, the United States’ booming shale gas business will make it the global leader in well-borne fossil fuels, according to PFC Energy.

Domestic energy production has declined since the early 1970s, when the United States peaked at about 22 million barrels of oil, natural gas and natural gas liquids per year, the analysis noted. About 45 percent of the product was oil and 43 percent was natural gas.
The United States is poised to hit 22 million barrels of oil equivalent again in 2020. _FuelFix

My firm belief is peak oil will only come into consideration when the education and science into extraction techniques has peaked and that will not happen in the foreseeable future. _OilVoice

The significant new oil find in Colorado, seen in the image at left, is just one small drop in a very large bucket of new oil & gas finds across the continental US. Even under the burden of US President Obama's energy starvation agenda, US oil & gas producers are finding a way to push back against political corruption and the anti-energy bias of the modern green Luddite movement.

Anadarko Petroleum Corp. said that land it controls in northern Colorado may hold more than a billion barrels of recoverable oil and natural gas, the latest sign that U.S. energy production is set to surge. _WSJ

With production of oil & gas surging from Texas to North Dakota to Louisiana to Pennsylvania -- and new discoveries coming to light on an almost daily basis -- the outlook for US onshore oil & gas is quite bright. Unless, of course, the green dieoff.orgy camp of energy starvationists -- so dominant within the Obama administration -- can manage to engineer a political shutdown of energy in the US.

The Fossil Fuel Age Is Being Extended Another 60 Years

“The fossil fuel age will be extended for decades,” said Ivan Sandrea, president of the Energy Intelligence Group, a research publisher. “Unconventional oil and gas are at the beginning of a technological cycle that can last 60 years. They are really in their infancy.” _NYT

Unconventional energy resources are putting the lie to peak oil doomers and global scarcity enthusiasts. New technologies for drilling oil & gas deep offshore, high in the arctic, and horizontally into tight shale and rock, are creating another global oil & gas boom cycle that will last decades. Throw in all the oil sands, heavy oils, and oil shale kerogens, and you are talking about real energy resources.

Now add all the methane hydrates, all the coal, all the new biomass resources, and the potential of a nuclear renaissance in modular reactors, molten salt reactors, fast integral reactors, LENR, and small scale fusion -- and we are talking about a lot of very versatile energy.

Large numbers of leftists and greens have become addicted to a philosophy of global scarcity, doom, and collapse. The doomers of peak oil and the carbon hysterics of climate doom have taken over the media, the academy, and many of the world's governments and inter-governmental institutions. Hundreds of billions of dollars are squandered yearly on this philosophy of doom -- to the point that it threatens to become self-fulfilling. Pessimism becomes a habit, an addiction. The doomers, the greens, the dieoff.orgiasts have invested themselves so deeply in doom, that they are unable to pull themselves out of the quagmire. And so they are trying to pull all the rest of us in with them.

There are a number of solutions to this problem of contagious top-down indoctrination into doom philosophy. But if the Obama economic depression goes on for much longer, many people around the world will began to grow desperate and call for scapegoat sacrifices. Should that process begin, it will signal the beginning of a rush to societal suicide. At that point, you would need to be located within a zone of relative sanity and safety.

On the other hand, all of the powerfully placed doomers, energy starvationists, and dieoff.orgiasts may be pushed aside by a wave of prosperity so powerful that they cannot hold it back. That would mean that Barack Obama is no longer in the White House, and that the global economic powerhouse was being unleashed once again, freed from self-destructive, suicidal policies of the lefty-Luddites.

Is Putin's Russia Ready to Let Go of Political Peak Oil?

While Russia is rich in oil and gas resources, the Russian government in 2008 had to introduce a US$4.2 billion tax cut at mid-year to reverse declining production after a period of growth from 1998 through 2004. "From the oil company's perspective, the government was taking all the revenue from high oil prices, leaving them will little to invest in new production, so there was nothing to offset declining production from aging fields in Western Siberia," Neff said.

"It's amazing how quickly the industry turned things around," said Neff, noting that Russian oil production passed the 10 million b/d mark in 2010. However, "there's still a sense that Russian production could come to a cliff if they don't make changes." _Rigzone

Russia has barely begun to tap its vast energy and mineral resources. Corruption, incompetence, and bureaucratic wrangling at all levels have combined to hold Russian production far below what it could be. In the past, many international partners and investors have been burned by the arbitrary nationalisation of assets by a corrupt Russian government. But now, Russia says it wants to change all that. Are they truly serious this time?

Russia is seeking to develop its oil and natural gas resources, particularly in untapped areas like its offshore Arctic region, as well as diversify the number of oil and gas export markets available to Russia, and needs companies with deep financial pockets and a willingness to share risk. However, laws restricting exploration and production (E&P) activity by foreign companies and a sector structured to favor domestic firms must be addressed to encourage E&P activity and maintain production growth.

While the Russian government has welcomed foreign investment, it has limited companies to partnering in projects with Russian companies as operator. "It's hard for companies not to want to be in Russia because it has such vast resources, but the investment climate has not been favorable to foreign companies. The most they can hope for is an equal stake in a project with a state company, and that it ambitious," Andrew Neff, senior energy analyst at IHS.

BP's recent share swap with Rosneft, which will allow BP access to explore for oil and gas in Russia's Arctic, was made possible by BP's exceptional circumstances and its unique position in Russia via its TNK-BP venture, Neff said. However, it could set off a new frenzy of international oil companies (IOCs) looking to partner with national oil companies, if not in Russia, perhaps elsewhere.

...The Russian government is expected to push towards private companies investing in exploring for and producing oil and gas in eastern Siberia as part of a plan to diversify its supply market to include China and other Asian countries, where crude oil demand has surged. "The thinking is that if Europe can diversify its gas suppliers, the Russia should be able to find alternative markets for its supply," said Neff.

These efforts include the first pipeline linking Russia and China, the 3,018-mile Eastern Siberia Pacific Pipeline, which is now operational and will transport 300,000 b/d of oil over a 20-year period. The project's second phase will see pipeline laid that will allow for oil shipments to Japan and Korea.... _Rigzone

Prospective partners and investors must think long and hard about getting involved with the corrupt Putin dictatorship. The recent re-conviction of former Yukos head Khodorkovsky provides abundant evidence that the laws in Russia are simply whatever Putin says they are.

And yet, Siberia is stuffed full of mineral and energy wealth. Everyone wants a piece of it. Of course, if Russia does not do something about its incredible shrinking population, Siberia will belong to China before anyone expects it.

An Intent to Create Political Peak Oil?

When a government is run by ideologues more concerned with satisfying an extreme special interest constituency than in seeing that the country functions well and prospers, a number of problems can crop up. The current US government's bumper crop of fools appears intent on creating "political peak oil" -- energy starvation brought about by counter-productive government policies.

Not wanting to allow a crisis to go to waste, the Obama Pelosi regime is determined to create an all-out catastrophe.

Three weeks ago, William K. Reilly, the newly named co-chairman of the presidential commission appointed to investigate the BP oil spill, said he thought the six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico was necessary – and maybe even too short.

He said in an interview with The Times that the commission was unlikely to recommend that the ban be lifted before the panel completes its work in January. He said that government and industry must first adopt profound changes in how they operate before he would be willing to advocate lifting the moratorium. “Those things would have to happen faster than past history would suggest is possible,” he said.

But on Tuesday, after two days of touring the gulf region and a day and a half of hearing testimony from a variety of aggrieved local officials, business interests and oil executives, Mr. Reilly changed his tune. The moratorium is spreading economic pain across the region, he said, and for many is worse than the effects of the spill itself.

He said he was prepared to press President Obama and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to move as quickly as possible to adopt new safety and environmental protections and lift the moratorium well before it is scheduled to end in late November. “It’s not clear to me why it should take so long,” Mr. Reilly told reporters during a break in testimony on Tuesday.

“The commission has not researched this issue, and we will give full attention to countervailing arguments,” he said. “But I come from this whole experience with a much clearer sense of the degree of economic dislocation and the hardship caused by the moratorium than I had three or four days ago.”

The other co-chairman of the commission, Bob Graham, a former Democratic senator and governor from Florida, said that he, too, believed that the moratorium was a burden on the economic life of the Gulf Coast. He said the federal government has had nearly three months to inspect the rigs in the gulf and wondered why it was taking so long to determine whether they can safely restart operations. _NYT

But it bothered me the most when Interior Secretary Salazar reported that a panel of experts selected by the National Academy of Engineering had “peer reviewed” the report, agreeing on the six-month moratorium on exploratory drilling in the Gulf. It turns out that the seven experts never saw the final recommendation and in fact, opposed it. Salazar actually modified their report after they signed it to include two paragraphs calling for the moratorium! Salazar finally had to admit to the fraud, but this looks like one more instance where the Obama crew is neither honest nor competent.

By the way, Carol Browner, EPA, even said, “no one's been deceived or misrepresented.” What? I say impeach the whole bunch of clowns. _Source

Mass (achusetts) Insanity! Political Peak Oil For Dummies

Peak Oil is easy to achieve: simply outlaw all forms of energy that might conceivably substitute for light sweet crude oil. That includes coal, oil shale, oil sands, heavy oils, nuclear, and now ...... biofuels!!! The state of Massachusetts has decided to ban all biofuels from algae, miscanthus, microorganisms, etc!!!

Under the proposed regulation, Massachusetts will ban the use of all non-waste feedstocks, which include algae, cyanobacteria, jatropha, miscanthus, switchgrass, or oils produced on a harvestable basis by microorganisms, such as employed by Joule Biotechnologies.
_BiofuelsDigest

The action by Massachusetts regulators is particularly stupid, and indicative of what to expect under a regime of political peak oil and faux environmentalist dieoff.orgiasm.

Recent decisions by Obama's EPA and Pelosi's congress lead the entire nation in the same direction: energy starvation by decree. This is the result of extremists in high places, enabled and elected by a dumbed down electorate. It is only the beginning, unless individuals and groups begin to act in their own defense to block and reverse these trends.

The Earth needs wisdom, not extremism. If the green extremists have their way, they will destroy the Earth's ecosystems by shifting world power from governments and civilisations that have protected the environment, toward populations and civilisations that have always devastated the environment. Of course, the idiots are too far gone in their fanaticism to think the thing through.

Oynklent Green [OTC:OYNK], where are you?

More on Obama's Disastrous Energy Policies

With the appointment of extremists like climate czar Carol Browner and science adviser John Holdren, Obama has placed his administration's environmental policy in the hands of radicals. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar proposes replacing oil and coal with windmills. Yet Barron's recently reported that America would need to build 500,000 giant offshore windmills and transmission lines to produce Salazar's specified 1,900 gigawatts of electricity. In contrast, oil and gas drilling could provide hundreds of thousands of solid, well-paying blue-collar jobs. Washington Post economics columnist Robert Samuelson explains this in "The Bias Against Oil & Gas," describing how alternative energy job creation is miniscule compared to what an expansion of oil production would create. Meanwhile, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) have proposed legislation giving legal standing to allow Americans to sue any company that produces "greenhouse" gasses. _Reason

What are some of the problems with Obama's clown troupe of incompetents ideas?

Forbes recently detailed the problems with windmills. First, they depend upon a two-cent-per-kilowatt taxpayer subsidy to remain competitive. They also require backup gas generators (in case the wind isn't blowing when needed) and new transmission lines running from windy places to population centers. And while new technologies to store wind-generated electricity are in the works, they have so far proven uneconomical. Nor does this even begin to consider the years of legal delays that would likely result from litigious neighbors opposed to new transmission towers. Solar power is even more expensive and would also require additional billions for backup generators and new transmission lines. Compare those unseen costs to the clear benefits of coal and gas plants where transmission lines are already built.

New oil and gas technologies could also help the U.S. from importing so much oil. But the Obama administration is stalling and trying to stop the offshore drilling approved by the previous Congress. The White House has also shut down previously permitted onshore drilling and burdened drillers with costly new restrictions. Meanwhile, $80 billion in stimulus spending has been earmarked for "renewable" energy. The plan is to give a 30 percent tax credit for the associated costs.

JB Utley, author of the Reason article above, presents links to several supporting articles that are worth looking at. Utley's main problem is that he doesn't understand biology and what biology can offer to the energy picture -- first at the local and regional level, and later scaled for larger impact.

The US is truly in the hands of incompetent clowns from top to bottom. The few competent government employees in mid and upper level positions are experiencing increasing pressures to conform to the dominant idiocy of the clown regime. And this regime intends to grow large enough to envelop all of the private sector, if it has time.

All of which tells you that if you want to get anything done, learn to bypass the government.

Obama EPA Moves Quickly to Choke US Energy

The Obama administration EPA is moving quickly to halt the building of critically needed new energy generation plants. Influenced by radical environmental lobbies, the Obama administration is putting leftist ideology first, over the needs of US residents and the economy. Given Obama's boasts to wealthy environmentalist backers that he would "put the coal industry out of business", these moves are not surprising.

Taylor said the EPA decision could be "a real killer" for the planned coal-fired plant and that it gives opponents time to consider it more seriously.

"I just can't help but believe that the change in the administration had something to do with this," she said.

In November, the EPA was blocked from issuing a permit for a proposed coal-burning power plant in Utah without addressing global warming, a ruling that meant the Obama administration likely would determine the fate of other similar plants. _Examiner

This is just the beginning. So far, "Dear Fuhrer's" anti-energy pogrom is flying mostly below the radar. As this leftist Luddism begins to bite deeper into an already depressed economy, more people will start to notice. The corrupt special interests at fault here include some of the oldest environmental organisations in the US -- recently becoming much more radical since the popularisation of the global warming crusade -- including the Sierra Club.

Wind Kite Power, Hot Air Balloon Power, More

This Rotokite wind generator is an interesting variation on the wind power theme. It has much in common with this new hot air balloon power generating scheme. Both methods utilise natural forces to provide a slow cyclic up and down movement over significant distances, like two stroke engines with a very long stroke.

The sun only provides about 6 hours of useful energy per day, and the wind is quite unpredictable. The best way to make use of solar and wind currently, is by either grid intertie or off-grid, on a small to medium scale. For grid intertie, you will need to negotiate with the utility. For off-grid, you will need your own method of power storage, for sunless, windless periods of time. Off-grid applications will need to be extremely energy efficient, preferably making maximum use of passive solar design and insulation. Power use and state of energy storage will need to be metered in real time, to prevent excessive depletion of power storage. A lot of trouble, sure. But for some it is worth it.

For large scale "modern" society, attached to utility power, the choices are clear: increase power generation and upgrade the transmission networks. Failure to do either or both will result in energy starvation and increasingly serious power failures on a wide scale. Addicted to power, modern societies will not function well without plentiful power supplies.

We understand that the narcissist-elect is inexperienced, unqualified, and incompetent. But is he completely unintelligent, so unintelligent as to be unaware of the problem? Is he as stupid as Boxer and Pelosi? We will soon see.

Welcome to Barak's Brave New Energyless World

Oct. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Barack Obama will classify carbon dioxide as a dangerous pollutant that can be regulated should he win the presidential election on Nov. 4, opening the way for new rules on greenhouse gas emissions. _Bloomberg_via_Wattsupwiththat

Obama in his wisdom is preparing to put the finishing touches to the demise of the US (and thus the world) economy. The implications of this incredibly foolish proposal go to the heart of Obama's judgment and personal competence.

In my opinion, this is lunacy - Obama’s thinking is completely off the rails now. He cites a new energy plan in August, then cripples it from the start with this sort of thinking. _WattsUpWithThat

Lunacy is proposing to give every citizen $50,000 a year just for existing. Lunacy is being willing to sit down with enemies of your country without preconditions. Lunacy is destroying the educational system of Chicago and planning to do the same to the entire US. But this????!! This goes far beyond lunacy into the criminally insane category.

Already, much needed power plants are being cancelled due to misplaced concerns over CO2 emissions. Under Obama's grand regime, plans for new uses of coal, oil sands, heavy oils, shale oil, and other carbon producing energy methods would be placed in suspension indefinitely, as existing plants are shut down, and the already dangerous energy and electrical generation reserves will be reduced below critical levels.

Want to know a secret that only you and a few other people will know? The current worldwide market fiasco and credit crunch happened not just because of Carter and Clinton's misguided forays into "home mortgages for all" using the CRA and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. The crash is not just because the federal government pushed banks into dangerous loans, and provided incentives for the wild trading in credit default swaps in national and international markets. It was not just that ACORN, Maxine Waters, Barney Franks, Chris Dodd, and the other usual suspects prevented Bush and McCain from reforming Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the growing mortgage dysfunction. Not even a growing dread among investors over a possible Obama presidency fully explains the sinking financials.

The tipping of the edifice occurred when the headlong flight into commodities (including oil) by hedge funds, pension funds, long-only funds of investment banks, etc. ran into a brick wall. The funds, banks, and investment houses were already up to their necks in unsound derivatives. But when the commodity markets took a dive--which anyone with a brain knew they would--the camel's back was broken. Now you know. A delusional belief in "Peak Oil" was one of the fibres in the straw that broke the financial camel's back.

Now, Obama wishes to use another popular delusion--climate catastrophe or CAGW--to finish the job. Is he that stupid? Does he believe the American people are stupid enough not to connect the dots? Or are both questions to be answered in the affirmative?

Previously published at Al Fin