371 comments on Does the Peak Oil "Myth" Just Fall Down? -- Our Response to CERA
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
371 comments on Does the Peak Oil "Myth" Just Fall Down? -- Our Response to CERA
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
- What "Lower Consumption" Means
- Tricking and Treating the Future
- Meeting Energy Decline Part-Way - Potatoes?
TOD:Europe
- The Future of Nuclear Energy: Facts and Fiction - Part IV: Energy from Breeder Reactors and from Fusion?
- The US stimulus and "green jobs"
- EROWI - energy return of water invested
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Saturday 7th November 2009
- The Bullroarer - Friday 30th October 2009
- Details of Solar Flagships Released
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race.”
—H. G. Wells, 1904
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
If we are so flush with energy, then why is it that today I received the third mailing from my local utility company offering a $25 energy credit in return for allowing them to install a device that periodically shuts off the air conditioner during times of peak usage? I also received a telephone call from a pushy company rep with the same offer.
The utility company must have sent that letter to all their customers.
You don't need to keep your house at 65F durring the summer while your not even home. Turn it off or turn it up and save some energy.
The topic of the main posting is that CERA and other like minded groups are implying that ff production capacity is not reaching its limits and can meet projected demand. If that is the case, then it does not follow that utility companies would be worried about not being able to meet demand. The large metropolitan area I live in already had an incident last winter when the utility company was forced to shut off power to large areas due to lack of natural gas. Personally, I see this as a harbinger - but that is my take.
I understand that utility company problems are multifactorial, but this was beyond the scope of the simple point I was making. You were not even on the same page. Heck, you were not looking at the same book.
Try not to be so overreactive. Your views may be in the minority on TOD, but having a thoughtful and polite tone will go far in allowing others to consider any valid points you may make.
I would like to point out your original post is irrelevant. There are many reasons for electric companies wanting to reduce demand during peak periods, many of them financial.
And your story about your utility having to shut off power because of a natural gas shortage? This post was about liquids.
PS. I agree that Hothgor was rude.
ImSceptical was right. This kind of program has very good justifications that are unrelated to fuel shortages.
It's called "demand management". It can be much cheaper to pay people to allow the utility to turn off their demand at peak, versus building new generation capacity just for peak demand.
in any case, i applaud energy conservation efforts for whatever reason.
The WSJ had a short note yesterday about the American Petroleum Institute (API) sending a letter to Congress warning them that if they raise taxes on the oil and gas industry it will hinder the industry's efforts to bring on new supplies of oil and gas and new alternative energy sources.
I actually agree with the API on this point, but I disgree withe the semi-cornucopian way they (and probably CERA) are trying to combat higher taxes. IMO, we need a much higher tax on energy consumption, offset by a cut to the Payroll Tax.
If you have time, could you please explain a little more about what you say here? I'm just not sure I'm reading this correctly. 1) Are you saying that the industry efforts to bring on "new alternative energy sources" would be hindered by raising taxes on the industry itself? 2) And when you say you agree with API...do you see a difference between "...taxes..on the industry" and "...a higher tax on energy consumption"? Or, do you see these as being essentially the same? 3) What do you see as actions that would promote (rather than hinder) "...new alternative...sources"? (I just realize I'm assuming by "new...sources", you mean - actually, which new sources are you including when you use this word?) I apologize in advance if I've not understood your previous posts on this subject. Thanks.
Full disclosure: I am an energy producer. In any case, I don't think that taxing energy production is going to help. I think that we need to tax energy consumption--in much the same way the Europeans do. Total energy consmption per capita in the US is twice what it is in Europe.
However, the API is taking the cornucopian approach. Just leave us alone and everyone will continue to be able to drive their SUV to their suburban mortgages.
BTW, the weekend WSJ has an article that goes into considerable detail on the effect that forced energy conservation is having on Africa.
WT,
As long as we continue to offer oil companies corporate welfare, they will take it. With Exxon receiving the largest profit in corporate history (any corp), I doubt that increasing taxes and eliminating subsidies will hurt it much.
As they get prodigiously richer, the oil execs will be the only people who can afford to drive SUVs to their mortgages.
I agree that consumer taxes are necessary, but we must not forget the super-wealthy corporations. I am, of course, assuming that when the MSM says "profit," they mean money left over after all operating expenses, including research and exploration dollars.
Personally, I believe that we must immediately begin taxing the bejeezus out of all the rich and especially the corporations. They have gotten too much from the commonwealth and returned too little or have caused actual damage.
I have little sympathy for rich people who cry crocodile tears when they only have a couple of million dollars left to live on. BOO HOO.
This sort of selfish behaviour earns the applause of right wingers who claim it is precisely this "evil" behaviour that produces all the good things we currently enjoy. Unfortunately, for this argument, the good things have been available since time began. I.E. food, water, and air. (For how much longer, I don't know.) Corporations do not account for environmental costs, effectively off-loading these costs onto the commons. When a person gets sick from pollution caused by a corporation hundreds of miles away, society picks up the tab. This is nitpicking on my part, using the terminology of the economic categorizer, please forgive me. I must wash out my mouth with organic soap. The overarching truth of pollution remains: it is killing the planet. Does not matter how we slice the fictional economic pie, that group over there, better known as XYZ Corp., engages in murder; therefore, such selfish, evil behaviour must be stopped. That is why we must tax the bejeezus out of the rich. We need to clean up their selfish messes.
A tax on a corporation is a tax on its employees, its shareholders and its customers.
A corporation is just a legal construct, it isn't an end user in economic terms.
The actual fraction of say a $100 tax might be split 33/33/34 or it might be split very differently.
It depends on how competitive the markets in which the corporation operates in, and how competitive the suppliers are, and the employees.
So a company like WalMart is incredibly competitive, dominates its sector, dominates its supplier *but* it makes sub 10% margins.
Any new tax on WalMart is passed through to its employees, its suppliers and its customers.
Any proposal to 'tax' corporations has to recognise this transparency.
In practice, what the US should have is a low rate of corporate income tax (I would argue 25% or lower) but *no* exemptions. This would have the least distorting effect on tax revenues, and might actually raise corporate tax revenues.
Good thoughts, tho' I'm not an economist enough to agree or disagree..
As long as the 'no exemptions' part doesn't just get painted as a 'new tax', I think this would have a prodigious effect.. almost a corporate Flat Tax. So in the same corner, do you have a take on a US policy direction that would also deal with the virtual 'offshoring' of corporations to avoid our taxes? Would it be better to have a policy DISincentive to being outside the border (ie, Tariffs and other int'l Trading costs?), or some other kind of INcentive to keep a firm flying the Stars and Stripes? Membership ought to have its priviledges..
Bob Fiske
Dave-I understand the new Congressional commitee on energy is skeptical of the CERA report, stating they felt Cera's use of USGS data was erroneous. Should get them a copy of your work. Sorry I don't recall/have the links, just I recall an AP wire story read yesterday.
These CERA-related stories were probably earmarked elsewhere here at TOD:
http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/new_world_order/bush_nazis.html
This could be worth some digging.
Oh boy...
http://www.nndb.com/people/460/000060280/
Now, where did I leave my tin foil hat?
I need a tin foil coat to go with my hat
The fact is who pays CERA's bills is quite relevant perhaps more so than the organization's claim for objectivity. These analysts are ultimately hired by corporations (often through industry trade groups)for one reason: to promote either the company(s) that hired them or the individual that signed the contract. CERA's job is to make petroleum-related industries and people look good. I didn't pay their way. Perhaps you have?
There is one maxim that will drive any successful political or business investigation: follow the money. I say do it.