For all those people wondering when the mainstram of intellectual thinking is going to face up to the reality of Peak Oil, please take a look at the comments on Jeremy Leggett's blog over at the Guardian.

If such highly educated personages as these dismissive commenters can be so blind, what hope is there for the general masses?

All I can say is, when the panic hits home for the majority, it will be truly brutal.

I have been thinking much the same thing recently.

I find this story rather unnerving:

Natural gas economy is losing steam

On the brink of the 21st century, a group of energy experts peered into the future of natural gas, and what they saw was quite rosy -- and quite wrong.

To satisfy growing demand, producers could crank out a third more natural gas over the next decade at "competitive prices." It could "power our economy" for decades beyond. Or so said the National Petroleum Council in its 1999 report.

But natural gas prices soon headed skyward, with prices charged by producers spiking late last year at nearly five times 1999 levels. This past winter, though starting off warm, saw the average gas-heating household spend a record $867, a 17 percent increase, according to federal data. As for that predicted robust supply, the country's annual gas output has strangely slipped by 3 percent over the past six years.

The experts didn't have a clue.  Worse, they're still clueless.

Something is broken in the economics of natural gas, say people inside and outside the industry. The bright dream of an economy built squarely on clean-burning natural gas is slowly deflating. Although we still derive almost a quarter of the country's energy from natural gas, its share will slip in coming decades, federal forecasters now say.

"What's going on now is so dysfunctional, it is really remarkable," says industry consultant Jim Choukas-Bradley.

They don't seem to get it.  They know something is drastically wrong, but the only explanation they can imagine is some kind of conspiracy.

Despite their protests, maybe some producers aren't really trying, industry critics suspect. Maybe they're happy to take it easy and rake in record yearly profits. Many natural gas producers are the same companies benefiting from rocketing gasoline prices in recent years -- familiar petroleum names like Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Shell and BP.

...Some Midwestern cities are accusing producers of doing it by collusion. In an antitrust lawsuit, they suggest that producers have reached either a secret agreement or tacit understanding to bottle up production.

"I think the increase in prices is a designed thing," says Charles Wheatley, a lawyer for the 18 communities from Texas to Indiana suing five leading gas producers in federal court.

The idea that nature won't put more oil in the ground if you wave enough cash around seems to be completely beyond even the so-called experts.

Leanan, I agree. This one shocked the hell out of me. How can you have so many industry "experts" who know so much less about the situation than we do? Most TODers probably saw the reports last summer where Lee Raymond said that North American natural gas production had probably peaked. Shouldn't the concept of geologic limits explored a little further than this:

The country is not running out either. There's enough natural gas to last beyond 65 years -- much longer than oil, according to the best forecasts.

What forecasts are those???  How many more years do we have to go before anyone in the MSM realizes there are geologic limits to fossil fuel extraction??

I think what they are missing is EROEI.  The numbers say there's plenty of natural gas still out there...but it's in smaller deposits, deeper down, in areas that are harder to drill and farther from infrastructure. So it's not being extracted as quickly. It can't be extracted as quickly, no matter the price.
Yes, I wrote about this here.

There are some "questionable" estimates of how much natural gas the US has (eg. a 65 years supply). But here's the kicker.

The article is a good example of two basically contradictory assertions.

  1. There's plenty of natural gas.
  2. People are paying high prices for natural gas.
Therefore, it follows from #1 and #2 that there must be some kind of conspiracy afoot to keep natural gas prices high. And so the average "consumer" jumps to this conclusion. And it's hard to blame him. But, if #1 is false (which it is for North America), then there's no mystery as to why prices are high. These remarks apply to oil as well.

Strange, I never had this thought before but maybe somebody else here has.

Dear Leanan and Tochigi,

Mainstream, establishment intellectuals; whether they be economists, scientists, journalists, commentators, or polititians, have a awful lot invested in the kind of societies we live in. So much of their prestige, position and power, is based on a civilization founded on abundent, cheap, and easy energy. Psychologically, ideologically, and not least, economically they have a great deal to lose, if Peak Oil is real, and the end of the "Age of Expansion" is nigh. Therefore, asking or expecting them to embrace change on such a scale, is, perhaps, less then realistic.

Of course there are notable exceptions; Will Hutton's article is excellent. There's also George Monbiot and many others. But, as yet, those with a contrary view are "voices crying in the wilderness." This is likely to change though, as the 'reality' of Peak Oil rears it's ugly head, and can no longer be ignored. Whether there will be enough of such voices, and whether enough people will hear them, and whether any action will be taken, like confronting existing power-structures, is as they say, another question entirely.

The above mentioned groups remind me of the French aristocracy and the incredible lifestyle they had at the palace of Versailles. A glorious, sheltered, and luxurious community - almost a world-within-a-world. For themselves they created a kind of paradise on earth, supported by staff of 50,000. There was lots of food, intrigue, gossip, sex, music, tension, excitement, and fun. The aristocracy knew very little about the lives of the vast majority of the population; which before the age of cheap/easy energy, provided the foundation opon which the whole, glittering edifice of Versaille was built. Like us, they we unaware of just how fragile their lifestyle actually was, and how brittle and delicate.

When one has this kind of lifestyle and has only known this kind of lifestyle; it becomes "reality" and is "natural." The idea of losing it, is insane and non-negotiable. Expecting such an aristocracy to recognise, accept, and institute fundamental social/economic reforms, of an almost "revolutionary" nature; is simply asking too much of mere mortals, in my opinion. Unfortunately, I don't think people in situations like this are capable, or able, to initiate these kinds of massive, institutional, changes.

Will our "aristocracy" do any better? I don't really know. I have my doubts, I really do. The rich and powerful have often, as a social group, shown an extraordinary ability, not to "see" the changes happening in the world around them - until it was too late. Here, one can sometimes feel something close to nostaligia or even sadness. It's a melancholy feeling, knowing what needs to be done, but not have the power to impliment anything. It's also a miserable thought, that we may even have reached the "too late" position already, and when the mainstream finally begins to take action on Peak Oil, we may even be battling against the inevitable collapse of our way of life and tilting at windmills. But, I suppose that's marginally better than just passively, negatively, and cynically accepting our fate. Surely, some of us at least, will choose to cling to our humanity and civilised values, and boldly face down the reality of barbarians at the gate. And I suppose, paradoxically, that doesn't make us all that different from the aristocrats in Versaille, does it?