IPCC Demands Peak Oil Now!!!

Guest hyperbole by David Middleton

Definition of Hyperbole

Hyperbole, derived from a Greek word meaning “over-casting,” is a figure of speech that involves an exaggeration of ideas for the sake of emphasis.

Literary Devices

IPCC demands Peak Oil now = hyperbole… Or does it?

Article / April 23, 2019
OVEREXPOSED
The IPCC’s report on 1.5°C and the risks of overinvestment in oil and gas

Overinvestment in oil and gas creates risks for investors, regardless of whether the world is effective in tackling climate change. Either investors face assets being stranded as demand for fossil fuels falls in a transition to a low carbon economy, or the overinvestment contributes to excess emissions from fossil fuels, the failure to transition and the financial costs of a dramatically changed climate.

Read the blog, Big oil is set to spend $5 trillion on fossil fuels we can’t afford to burn.

[…]

Capital investment in new fields is incompatible with 1.5°C

Our analysis compared average oil and gas demand in the IPCC scenarios that are not reliant on high levels of future carbon capture or removal with industry production forecasts. It found that over the next decade:


*Any production from new oil and gas fields, beyond those already in production or development, is incompatible with limiting warming to 1.5°C;

*All of the $4.9 trillion forecast capex in new oil and gas fields is incompatible with limiting warming to 1.5°C; and,

*9% of oil and 6% of gas production forecast from existing fields is incompatible with limiting warming to 1.5°C.

[…]

Primary recommendations


1. Oil and gas companies should align their capex planning with scenarios that limit warming to 1.5°C without reliance on unrealistic levels of future carbon capture and removal.


2. Investors should require oil and gas companies to explain how each new material capex investment is aligned with the Paris goals. This assessment should be made in the context of the company’s whole portfolio, include alignment with 1.5°C and full disclosure of the assumptions on the scale of carbon capture or removal used in their assessment.

Global Witness

Note to Gorebal Witless Global Witness, oil and gas companies are oil and gas companies… The only way they could “align their capex planning with scenarios” compatible with IPCC scenarios would be to become something other than oil and gas companies or go out of business.

Investors who invested in oil and gas companies, expecting them to become something other than oil and gas companies or go out of business are mentally ill.

Apparently, IPCC SR 1.5 demands Peak Oil and Peak Gas, right fracking now…

So, I guess the only way to appease the gods of Gorebal Warming is to actually push civilization off a Seneca Cliff into Olduvai Gorge. I guess that’s why the IPCC demanded a $240/gal tax on gasoline to fund a $122 trillion global war on the weather.

Could it possibly get any stupider than this? And who in the Hell is Gorebal Witless Global Witness?


At Global Witness, we protect human rights and the environment by fearlessly confronting corruption and challenging the systems that enable it.

We want a better world – where corruption is challenged and accountability prevails, all can thrive within the planet’s boundaries, and governments act in the public interest.

When founded in 1993, we were pioneers in seeing the link between natural resources, conflict and corruption. Since our very first campaign to shut down the Khmer Rouge’s illegal logging industry we’ve uncovered the truth about blood diamonds and helped bring trillions of oil, gas and mining revenues into the open. 

We’ve shone a spotlight on the brutal killings of those defending their land from forced seizure by corporations and governments alike, campaigned for an end to the use of anonymous companies, and much more.

Global Witness

I guess it could get stupider, so stupid that…

Reality

The folks at Gorebal Witless Global Witness derived this monument to stupidity by merging IPCC SR 1.5 with a series of reports by Rystad Energy on future capital expenditures by major oil companies. It really shouldn’t have been that complicated.

Commentary: Crunching the numbers: are we heading for an oil supply shock?

By Tim Gould, Head of Division for Energy Supply Outlooks and Investment, and Christophe McGlade, WEO Energy Analyst.

16 November 2018

In the detailed energy model that underpins WEO 2018, new sources of oil supply steadily come online at the right time to meet changes in oil demand and keep the system in equilibrium. This smooth matching of supply and demand minimises oil price volatility, which is why our price trajectories in each scenario are smooth, and would likely be a desirable outcome for many of the world’s oil consumers (it could also be better in the long run for many of the world’s producers).

But commodity markets don’t work this way in practice. The oil price drop in 2014 led to multiple widespread impacts on markets, not least of which was that the number of new upstream projects approved for developments plummeted. With the rapid levels of oil demand growth seen in recent years, there are fears that supply could struggle to keep up, bringing with it the risk of damaging price spikes and increased volatility.

On the flip side, with shale production in the United States continuing to grow at record levels and increasing attention on executing upstream projects that can quickly bring oil to market, there are also arguments why a future oil supply “crunch” be safely ruled out. What does the WEO 2018 have to say on this matter?

Why invest in new supply?

[…]

International Energy Agency

Oil fields are not like kitchen faucets. You can’t just turn a handle to increase or decrease production. You have to continuously invest capital to maintain and/or increase production. If you stop spending money, oil fields do this…

Global oil supply with and without CapEx. IEA

Gas fields do the same thing, just faster. Most fields produce both oil and gas and require a steady stream of investment.

So long as the demand for oil & gas remains stable and/or grows, oil & gas companies will continue to invest capital into oil & gas fields because… drum roll, please… THEY ARE OIL & GAS COMPANIES!!!… It’s a fossil fueled world and will remain so for many decades to come.

It’s a fossil fueled world. (BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2018)

Advertisements

87 thoughts on “IPCC Demands Peak Oil Now!!!

  1. If the general public really believed in the CC rubbish, then the demand for
    fuel would slow down. Its the classic Demand and supply, so obviously
    the average person does not accept that CC is a problem.

    Its a great pity that our politicians who are supposed to represent us, the
    general public, do not do so, preferring for their own reasons to continue
    to cry Wolf.

    MJE VK5ELL

    • Those that claim to believe CC is a problem want someone else to do the “necessary” sacrifice, never themselves.

      • Ordinary folks worry more about how to get to work and earn a paycheck so that they don’t loose the house or get kicked out on the street for rent arrears.

        2050 is a LONG , LONG way off.

        Those on multi million salaries at main media outlets seem as detached from the real world as academics with multi-million dollar grants flowing in.

    • The anti-oil and anti-pipeline government in British Columbia Canada has spent years throwing every conceivable roadblock to prevent a pipeline taking neighboring province Alberta’s oil to international markets. The BC government’s view is that all fossil fuels are dirty, filthy, polluting and immoral. The BC premier wants BC to be carbon free by 2030.

      But within the last few weeks gas prices at the pump have risen to $1.72/liter in British Columbia (about $5.20 US/gal) and people are howling. The BC premier’s solution? Simple. He wants Alberta build a refinery and ship the finished gas and diesel to BC to help them out. But the export pipeline is still off the table of course. Cognitive dissonance or what?

      However, Alberta just elected a new premier who will do the opposite of what BC wants. He’s getting ready to turn the oil taps to BC off completely. In doing so, the new Premier of Alberta will be helping BC become carbon free, but by 2019, not BC’s desired 2030 target. This is sending BC into a tizzy as they try to go to court to force Alberta to sell them the oil they want while simultaneously seek to destroy Alberta’s economy by stopping Alberta from selling oil overseas. Big fun in Western Canada.

      Liberal/socialist/eco-activist and politicians live utterly unsustainable lifestyles because someone somewhere does some dirty job that they don’t see and don’t want to know about. And the sick part is that they want them to keep doing it.

      • However, Alberta just elected a new premier who will do the opposite of what BC wants. He’s getting ready to turn the oil taps to BC off completely.

        Good for him. The sooner he turns off the taps the better. Any deals to sell oil/gas to BC should be contingent upon the pipeline being built.

      • The idiots/children in British Columbia do not understand that 18% of Canada’s GDP comes from oil production.

        The oil in the Alberta reserves, should be money in the bank for Canadians and the Canadian economy.

        This should be a no brainer, not a big fight. Canada is running a large yearly budget deficit, has a large trade deficit, and is a cold country where agriculture is limited by frost free days.

        Using the new Cenovus technique of heavy oil recovery, 30% to 40% of the 1.75 billion bbl reserve (535 billion bbl to 700 billion bbl) is recoverable.

        There is 1.75 Trillion barrels of heavy oil in the three Alberta reserves that cover an area larger than England.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_sands

        Most of the Canadian oil sands are in three major deposits in northern Alberta. They are the Athabasca-Wabiskaw oil sands of north northeastern Alberta, the Cold Lake deposits of east northeastern Alberta, and the Peace River deposits of northwestern Alberta. Between them, they cover over 140,000 square kilometres (54,000 sq mi)—an area larger than England—and contain approximately 1.75 Tbbl (280×109 m3) of crude bitumen in them.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_Saudi_Arabia

        The proven oil reserves in Saudi Arabia are the 2nd largest in the world, estimated to be 268 billion barrels (43×109 m3) (Gbbl hereafter), including 2.5 Gbbl in the Saudi–Kuwaiti neutral zone. They are predominantly found in the Eastern Province.[1] These reserves were the largest in the world until Venezuelaannounced they had increased their proven reserves to 297 Gbbl in January 2011.[2]

        • The estimate I saw today was $20B in 2018 alone. Not in forgone shipments, just the price differential on what Canada was able to ship to the US compared to the WTC and other world prices.

        • The actions of our child minded Prime Minister are not helping either, a bill is on its way through Parliament to ban tanker traffic on the west coast but not on the east coast so that the tanker train of Saudi oil can continue to arrive in the Liberal stronghold Quebec and the west is driven into poverty. Add to that the ultra-convenient report from government “scientists” that Canada is warming twice as fast as the rest of the globe just days before the federal government imposed a carbon tax to save the planet.

      • “This is sending BC into a tizzy as they try to go to court to force Alberta to sell them the oil they want while simultaneously seek to destroy Alberta’s economy by stopping Alberta from selling oil overseas. Big fun in Western Canada.”

        That does sound like fun! 🙂

      • As a resident of British Columbia, paying CDN$171.9/litre for my last fill-up I say .. go Jason Kenney, turn off the taps from Alberta, bring the pain and bring down our far-left coalition BC government (co-led by Andrew Weaver, Mr my climate models are more correct than real world data). Common sense will hopefully return soon, but this being the left coast, it’s in short supply.

      • I wish every one of these lame aspects of saving the planet was taken in hand by the producers & shut them off! Let’s see how long idiots stay in place when their lies come to fruition. If you don’t have a new (energy source) why talk in the future. We ONLY HAVE TEN YEARS…… It’s a fools Parade….

    • Global demand for oil has been growing 1 to 1.5 million barrels per day each year for the last few years, and is now up to about 100 million barrels per day.

      “Global oil demand growth slowed down in 2018 as higher oil prices partially offset robust economic activity around the world. Demand grew by 1.3 mb/d (total liquid demand, including biofuels) in 2018, less than the increase of 1.5 mb/d in 2017.”

      https://www.iea.org/geco/oil/

    • If there was a true faith in mortal gods and prophecy, they would stop using “green” tech that is an environmental blight, ecologically disruptive, and exploits environmental arbitrage to sustain a fraudulent misconception. Or they could acknowledge the limits of science, the appeal of secular incentives, the value of development and living, turn off the virtue signals, and save their energy for something less green.

      • If there was a true faith in mortal gods and prophecy</I.

        Wouldn't mortal gods be a contradiction in terms

        mor·tal [ˈmôrdl]
        ADJECTIVE
        1.(of a living human being, often in contrast to a divine being) subject to death.

        di·vine [dəˈvīn]
        ADJECTIVE
        1.of, from, or like God or a god.

        • Not really. Many emperors throughout history declared themselves Gods or their equivalent.

          However, I think n.n. is saying that their knowledge is complete and infallible. They declare everyone who disagrees with them heretics and subversive, to be punished for their heresy.

    • You guys sitting in the comforts of your American and Canadian homes think that CC is hoax… Come down to one of the islands and see their villages sinking every year… Will you give them homes.. You won’t.. Although it’s you the so called 1st world which is responsible for almost all of it…

      • Which islands? If you tell us we can go and look for the reason they are sinking because the sea level is rising only as fast as in the last several hundred years. Oh, you haven’t looked for that fact yourself? Parroting what you were told?

      • “You guys sitting in the comforts of your American and Canadian homes think that CC is hoax… Come down to one of the islands and see their villages sinking every year… Will you give them homes.. You won’t.. Although it’s you the so called 1st world which is responsible for almost all of it…”

        CC (human-caused climate change) *is* a hoax, Jimmy.

        Humans are not causing islands to sink, Jimmy. If you claim otherwise, please provide some evidence to back up this claim.

        We *will* give them homes, Jimmy. If your island sinks then just make your way to the southern U.S. border and step into the United States and all your troubles are over. The American taxpayer will give you a welfare check, and free housing and free medical care and free schooling for your children and all sorts of other goodies. The American taxpayer will even give you a home, Jimmy. At least until American immigration laws are changed, which will take place by 2021 at the latest, imo. So you still have time. I don’t think Nancy and Chuck will cave before the 2020 elections come around. But miracles sometimes happen.

        The First World is not responsible for CAGW because CAGW is a hoax. The Leftist leaders of the First World *are* responsible for creating a crisis atmosphere out of something as benign as CO2. See how they have you thinking humans are causing islands to sink.

        Don’t believe everything those leftists tell you, Jimmy. They have ulterior motives beneficial to them but not necessarily to the rest of us. Their method of gaining control is to scare people about something and then offer to fix the problem for them their way. “Their way” usually exaserbates any problem they try to fix. Don’t listne to them.

  2. Careful what they wish for.
    We might get peak oil and they won’t like it.

    Illig, A. and Schindler, I., 2017. Oil extraction, economic growth, and oil price dynamics. BioPhysical Economics and Resource Quality, 2(1), p.1.
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs41247-016-0016-6

    “Note that both theoretical considerations from the dynamic production function identities and the empirical model (3.6) indicate that price dynamics will speed the rate of decline in oil extraction. During the growth phase of oil extraction, low prices increased demand, and high prices increase supply, during the contraction phase, low prices will diminish supply, and high prices will diminish demand.”

    • “and high prices will diminish demand.”

      This is why we will never run out of oil. Ever. Someday, when oil costs $300 a barrel, we will “need” a LOT less of it.

      • At $300 a barrel there are a lot of processes that it becomes via to make fuel from raw materials including CO2 itself. Rough average is less than 80-90 gallons of fuel products from a barrel of oil.
        Converting CO2 to fuel is currently around $3.75 a gallon. Even the amount of fuel extracted per barrel can be increased if the cost rises.

        So you see even if the cost of fuel rises it doesn’t mean it will peak, you might just open up more possibilities.

        • Unless you have free or very very cheap energy, it makes no sense to convert CO2 to fuel because it takes more energy input than can be gotten out. Thus one would be better off using this free energy directly in most cases.

          • Except gas is a great way to store energy for use of inventions like the combustion engine. Far better (more energy dense) than a battery.

        • LdB said:

          “Converting CO2 to fuel is currently around $3.75 a gallon.”

          Burning Carbon releases energy and creates CO2. To turn CO2 back to C and O2 means providing energy. Where is this energy coming from? It sounds like the proverbial perpetual motion scheme.

          C + O2 >= CO2 + usable energy (1).

          CO2 +spare energy (2) >= C + O2.

          Since with every conversion of energy from one form to another, there is an inevitable loss, energy(2) > energy(1).

          Where is the missing energy coming from? Remember Snowy Mk 2 will only be about 85% efficient.

        • LdB writes: “Rough average is less than 80-90 gallons of fuel products from a barrel of oil.” Obviously petroleum processing is more efficient than I realized. Isn’t a barrel of oil defined as 42 US gallons?

          Dan

        • Exactly. That’s a great point. There are points at which substitute technologies will supply fuel.

        • One cannot convert money into energy, and it is not dollars that allow one to convert CO2 to fuel.
          It takes energy.
          Energy from various sources is priced in dollars, and those prices are today’s dollars at today’s price.
          So, when the price becomes $300/bbl, it will no longer cost $3.75/gallon.
          Come on now, let’s use our ‘eads here.
          It may be that when oil is $300/bbl, there will be some other energy source that is cheaper.
          But it is unlikely it will be a lot cheaper, because if it is, people will stop using oil, make fuel using the cheaper energy source, or power vehicles and machinery using the cheaper energy source directly.
          For a long time, nat gas in the US was very cheap compared to oil or gasoline or (especially, back then) diesel, using the metric of cost/btu. It was obvious to me for a long time that something was bound to change, whether it was lower oil price, higher nat gas price, or some combination of the two.
          Some disparity is common, but at a certain point people will start doing stuff like converting big rig trucks to nat gas. I stopped trading energy stocks when it become more difficult to make money that way (commodities in general) and easier to make money on other sorts of stocks, and stopped following it as closely in terms of relative price and industry trends, but it seems to me that gasoline and diesel have gotten cheaper, nat gas has gotten more expensive, more nat gas is being used more and for more things than previously, and the disparities have lessened.
          This is what will happen in a rational market.
          Of course, markets can be skewed by any number of factors, like if a political party makes it their business to put certain forms of energy, and the people who depend on them, out of business, like what happened with coal.
          But I think we can be pretty sure that crude oil will never be $300/bbl at the same time one can make a gallon of gasoline from raw materials for $3.75/gallon.
          Heck, not even $4.

          • Oil is a lousy source of energy. It’s much to expensive. That is why is can only compete in niches (like islands) in the electricity generation markt. The price would have to fall to under $10 to seriously compete with coal.

            Gas is a different matter. The oil and gas industry will be the gas and oil industry in a couple of decades, and combined cycle gas is already squeezing coal. Note that this means decarbonization, because of the high hydrogen to carbon ratio of gas.

            Oil’s biggest use by far, storing energy in a moving vehicle, is under attack from all sides. Gas, batteries and hydrogen are all in the offing. Because the current fleet is so big, the effects won’t be felt in the oil industry for a decade, but the car industry is already in full panic mode.

  3. There’s another little problem: much of the previous investment has been done with borrowed money. Bonds can only be serviced (and, ultimately, repaid) if oil continues to flow. Already, there’s a bit of a Ponzi scheme when it comes to oil and gas Capex. .

    If you want to crash the debt markets, and take down mutual funds, pension funds, individual investors, even governments, turn off the spigots. These free groups are calling for nothing short of economic collapse and potentially dangerous political consequences.

    • Adam, they want the collapse of the current free-market capitalist system.

      “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for the, at least, 150 years, since the industrial revolution” – Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of UNFCCC

    • Adam … at 5:51 am
      These free groups are calling for nothing short of economic collapse and potentially dangerous political consequences.

      “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse?
      Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” Maurice Strong May 1990

      Mr. Strong was fantasizing about a book he would like to write.

      • THE WIZARD OF BACA GRANDE

        I leave the Baca with Strong, retracing our route of a week earlier. We pass the Lazy U Ranch and turn south on Highway 17. The desert slides by. Strong tells me he has often wished he could write. He has a novel he’d like to do. It’s something he has been thinking about for a decade. It would be a cautionary tale about the future.

        Each year, he explains as a background to the telling of the novel’s plot, the World Economic Forum convenes in Davos, Switzerland. Over a thousand CEOs, prime ministers, finance ministers, and leadings academics gather in February to attend meetings and set economic agendas for the year ahead. With this as a setting, he then says: “What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich counties? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it?” And Strong, driving as I take notes, looks at me. Then his eyes go back to the Highway 17. The man who founded the United Nations Environment Program and who wrote parts of the Burndtland Report and who in 1992 will try to get the world’s leaders, meeting in Brazil, to sign just such an agreement, savors the questions hanging in the air. Will they do it? Will the rich countries agree to reduce their impact on the environment? Will they agree to save the earth?

        Strong resumes his story. “The group’s conclusion is ‘no’. The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

        “This group of world leaders,” he continues, “form a secret society to bring about an economic collapse. It’s February. They’re all at Davos. These aren’t terrorists. They’re world leaders. They have positioned themselves in the world’s commodity and stock markets. They’ve engineered, using their access to stock exchanges and computers and gold supplies, a panic. Then, they prevent the world’s stock markets from closing. They jam the gears. They hire mercenaries who hold the rest of the world leaders at Davos as hostages. The markets can’t close. The rich countries…” And Strong makes a light motion with his fingers as if he were flicking a cigarette butt out the window.

        I sit there spellbound. This is not any storyteller talking. This is Maurice Strong. He knows these world leaders. He is, in fact, co-chairman of the council of the World Economic Forum. He sits at the fulcrum of power. He is in a position to do it.

        “I probably shouldn’t be saying things like this,” he says.
        http://nwodb.com/?e=03620

  4. Peak Oil has already been achieved by policy dysfunction in Venezuela, Mexico, UK, and Libya. Hiding the State causes of production decline via distortion of the risk-reward relationship is an attempt to spread and reinforce such policy distortion.

    • Libya is a social justice zone in progress, motivated by capture of natural resources, and refugee crisis for democratic leverage.

  5. If you don’t understand the risks then you should not be an investor. Why is the IPCC so worried about investors anyway? They’re all big boys and girls.

      • An investor is a politician spending our money on worthless schemes, no? I see that the Democrats have various massive investments planned, ranging from a mere $5 trillion to perhaps $200 trillion. Meanwhile piker Trump only wants to waste $2 trillion on infrastructure.

    • It’s a form of virtue signalling. Pretending to care about people you couldn’t care less about.

  6. Even though they’ve been around for at least a quarter of a century, I’ve never heard of “Global Witness” either. They claim to have “uncovered the truth about blood diamonds” so perhaps they could work on the truth of blood oil: oil extracted by dictatorships vs. oil produced by democracies. Somehow I doubt that would fit their political biases, though.

  7. Thanks for the article. One correction to note:

    “The only way they could ‘align their capex planning with scenarios’ compatible with IPCC scenarios would to be to become something . . . “

  8. Oil and gas companies should align their capex planning with scenarios that limit warming to 1.5°C without reliance on unrealistic levels of future carbon capture and removal.

    If you reject the patently unscientific mainstream climate “science,” they do.

    • That’s coincidental… And the alignment is between CapEx and climate reality, not CapEx and IPCC scenarios.

      • I think you missed my point which was simply that whatever their CAPEX plan is, it aligns with 1.5°C given that there is no real science to support claims greater than that.

        • That’s why I said “the alignment is between CapEx and climate reality, not CapEx and IPCC scenarios.”

  9. The question is, as usual, who exactly is Big Oil?

    You will find it means Western owned oil companies. Shell, Exxon, BP, Total. You’ll find that it does not mean any of the state owned oil companies, who actually do most of the drilling and shipping.

    The argument is, lets stop too few of the producers, who produce too little for their stopping to solve the problem. Lets let the Chinese, Arab, Venezuelan, Iranian oil companies go on, even increase production. Lets ban any talk about that.

    Because saving the planet and climate….

    It reminds me of a UK Green who said the other day that the only solution was for ‘us’ to have fewer children. Right, and who is us? And how many fewer children will that be, globally?

    These people are mad.

  10. The brave petroleum warriors from Houston should do a little bit of homework before a show of indignation. Let Greta have tantrums.

    Have a look here : https://www.globalwitness.org/en/about-us/board-directors/
    In 2011 Her Majesty the Queen appointed Mark Stephens CBE, Chair of Global Witness, Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) for his services to law and the arts.
    In 2004 Her Majesty dubbed Dr. John Schellnhuber CBE, the great decarbonizer and depopulation advocate, at the Berlin Embassy.

    Just imagine the hornets nest Trump disturbed by dumping the Paris accord, and tweeting around the world last week that UK intelligence atempted a coup in the US !

    As well as asking for a state apology on his official visit to Britain in June, Pres. Trump should emphasise again why the US dumped the Paris Accord. It seems the oil men are not up to this task – even Tillerson caved in.

  11. If you look at this from the standpoint of an unthinking alarmist, it makes nominal sense. They’re looking for a way to use less oil. If less oil is supplied, less oil will be used.

    But instead of restricting investment to limit supply, it would be more logical to issue production permits directly. Existing companies would be granted allocations and new entrants into the market would need to purchase an allocation from an existing company. The inelasticity in the demand curve would drive prices a lot higher, and oil companies would make bank. I guarantee OPEC would be on board with this idea.

    Of course, rather than giving the windfall to oil companies, it would more logical to tax consumption so that the windfall flows to governments rather than oil companies.

    So, you’d never limit capital investment because issuing allocations would be a better idea.
    And you’d never issue allocations since levying taxes would be a better idea.
    So where does that leave this idea? As a proposal so bad that even better ideas are illogical.

    Sometimes I think people are just spitballing ideas, casually proposing TRILLIONS of dollars in economic impact without even bothering to think things through.

      • But wouldn’t driving up the price of Oil make more plays recoverable? It would seem to me that if the plan were to strand oil assets “in the ground” the means would be to lower the price so the more costly plays are not economically recoverable

    • The problem is how do you decide to split whatever cap you put on it.

      The two common ones are
      1.) Free market .. the developed countries will buy all the fuel allocation
      2.) Per capita distribution … China and India are big winners

      So you have peaked the oil use now tell us how you allocate it without starting a war 🙂

        • war is a very likely outcome.
          1) scarcity (especially of the artificial variety) results in fighting (war) over the scarce resources. Especially when the “allocation” is viewed as unfair by one or more parties.
          2) cheating leads to resentment of the cheaters which eventually leads to taking up violence (war) against unrepentant cheaters.

          As always the party that feels it’s being taken advantage of eventually will fight back, it’s just a matter of how bad things get before that happens.

  12. We just passed 1 million barrels a day in Oct 2018 at what point do you think the idiots might realize it is a pipe dream. Talk about stick your head in the sand and ignore Captian Obvious.

  13. The artificiality this want of “peak oil” of feels like projected guilt from a minority who, feel they world must pay for a non problem.

  14. When Alarmists pretend to be concerned about investors, you know their ideology is circling the drain.

  15. Did anyone notice the part in Global Witness, Overexposed, “… restricting demand for fossil fuels or reducing the supply of fossil fuels through the sudden and immediate phasing out of existing fossil fuel infrastructure.”

    What if, Climate Change Alarmists friendly government pass laws against oil refineries, Presto change-o, oil companies have stranded assets. No product, no value to oil reserves! Warning to all you investors, don’t be shocked when we crash the oil industry.

    How about the part, “Governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney has warned of, as closing this growing gap would require increasingly heavy-handed intervention.”

    How about in another speech Carney said there were three ways in which climate change could affect financial stability: physical risks, such as claims from floods and storms; liability risks that could arise if those suffering climate change losses sought compensation from those they held responsible; and transition risks caused by the revaluation of assets caused by the adjustment to a lower-carbon economy.” Code speak for nationalization.

  16. Again, I don’t think you score any points with believers in global warming by ridiculing such articles with name-calling and insults like calling the authors “Witless” and their opinions “Stupid”…

    … even if it is pretty stupid.

    • Why would you think I would have any interest in scoring points *with* witless idiots?

    • Again, I don’t think you score any points with believers in global warming by ridiculing such articles

      Then, with all due respect, you clearly didn’t get the point. The point isn’t to score points with such people, it’s to hold up their stupidity for the ridicule it deserves.

    • TDB,
      “Believers” are waiting for rapture.
      When that doesn’t happen they will move the date.
      Don’t expect much more of them.

    • TD, if you think believers in global warming are susceptible to facts and truth, you are mistaken.
      The reason they are believers is precisely because they are immune to facts, logic, and rationality.

  17. From the article: “At Global Witness, we protect human rights and the environment by fearlessly confronting corruption and challenging the systems that enable it.

    We want a better world – where corruption is challenged and accountability prevails, all can thrive within the planet’s boundaries, and governments act in the public interest.”

    Well, then, Global Witness surely has an investigation into the Climategate corruption of the Earth’s temperature record. Could someone direct me to this investigation, because I did a search but couldn’t find a thing about Global Witness and the Climategate fraud that was perpetrated upon the world.

    The Climategate Charlatans must have fooled those at Global Witness into believing the Earth is currently experiencing unprecedented warming caused by humans burning fossil fuels because they apparently have the idea that more CO2 will necessarily raise the Earth’s temperature to dangerous levels.

    I guess they haven’t noticed that the global temperature has cooled by about 0.5C over the last three years while CO2 is increasing. According to the scaremongers, more CO2 in the air means higher temperatures, but reality is not following the predictions. To a reasonably sensible person that would mean the predictions are wrong, that temperatures do not follow CO2 increases.

    We shouldn’t stop drilling for oil or investing in fossil fuels for the reasons given by Global Witness because their reasons are pure speculation not based on the real world. They have no evidence to back up a claim that temperatures are going to climb 1.5C more, much less that this small increase is going to cause catastropy. Pure Speculation based on nothing but a greenhouse gas theory and bastardized global temperature records.

    Without the bastardized Hockey Stick charts, the alarmists have nothing. If we go back to before the Hockey Stick charts were created and look at unmodified temperature charts from around the world, we see that they show the 1930’s as being as warm as today. What that means is contrary to the alarmist’s claims we are *not* experiencing unprecedented warming. It’s been this warm in the recent past and civilization didn’t end.

    The 1930’s warmth happened when CO2 was not considered a significant factor in the warming, so most of the warming was attributed to Mother Nature and natural cycles.

    Hansen said 1934 was 0.5C warmer than 1998, and that means that 1934 was 0.4C warmer than 2016. So the globe has actually been in a temperature decline since the 1930’s, while CO2 levels have increased from about 280ppm to 410ppm.

    The bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart is the only thing telling us that temperartures are warmer today than in the past going back for thousands of years. This Lie allows the Climategate Charlatans to make it look like CO2 is causing the Earth’s temperature to shoot up to unprecedented heights.

    Creating the bogus Hockey Stick charts was the only way the alarmists could sell the CAGW fantasy. If they allowed the fact that the 1930’s were as warm as today without CO2’s help, then they are going to have a hard time proving CO2 is responsible for today’s warming when today’s warming is no higher than the warming in the 1930’s and the 1930’s warmth was not influenced by large amounts of CO2 in the air. Mother Nature got it this warm in the 1930’s, so we should assume it is Mother Nature who is warming us up today, until there is evidence to the contrary. And there is no contrary evidence as of today.

    So the Climategate Charlatans erased the warmth of the 1930’s in their computers and came up with a totally bogus temperature profile for the globe, the Hockey Stick charts (Modern-era). These Hockey Stick charts cool the 1930’s and 1998 into insignificance, which is the purpose.

    Here’s a Hansen 1999 US temperature chart (a proxy for the global temperature profile,imo) alongside a bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart. You can see the differences. The Hockey Stick has virtually erased the warmth of the 1930’s and has turned the ups and downs of the Hansen 1999 chart on the left into the Hockey Stick chart on the right with the temperatures going up, up, up.

    One interesting point Doc brought up the other day was about global cooling and the bastardized Hockey Stick chart. If you look at the Hansen 1999 US chart, you can plainly see why climate scientists were worrying about Global Cooling.

    Look at the cooling that took place right down into the late 1970’s, on Hansen’s chart. The late 1970’s were as cool as the 1910’s, as can be seen, and during the 1970’s we were having all sorts of scare stories about how the Globe was cooling (and humans were the cause, but that’s another story).

    It’s plain to see why climate scientists were worried, isn’t it. And being climate scientists, they always think the current trend is going to continue forever, so they were really worrying in the late 1970’s. And they would have had a right to be worried had the temperatures continued to decline. That *would* have been a disaster. Fortunatly, they started to rise around 1980.

    Now look at the Hockey Stick chart. Where’s the Global Cooling on the Hockey Stick chart? In order to artificially cool the 1930’s, the alarmists had to warm the 1970’s. They had to tilt the whole chart down at one end and up at the other end. The Hockey Sticks are a complete distortion of reality. They have caused the world to waste Trillions of dollars on trying to control the Earth’s atmosphere based on the lies that the Earth’s climate could be controlled by humans and/or that the Earth’s climate needed to be controlled. Someone should pay for this.

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

    • And the 1998 chart from Hansen was itself already highly modified compared to what all the graphs looked like 15 years prior.
      As recently as the late 1980s, Karl et al released studies and graphs showing that the world was no warmer in the late 1980s than it was in the beginning of the 20th century.
      They specifically stated that the warming of the first half of the 20th century had been erased.
      And they were talking about global temps.
      It was easy for them to alter global temp time series graphs, and so they did it first.
      Easy because the data was so sparse, with virtually no ocean coverage worth squat, and very little in the entire southern hemisphere.
      To back up the assertion that the various adjustments in the era of global warming alarmism are bogus, one need only start looking at the various time series in relation to each other, and to the graphs for various cities all over the globe, from the US, to Iceland to South Africa.
      When one does this comparison, a very interesting thing occurs: The graphs all look very similar. There is nothing that one can look at in adjusted data sets that does not make sense or form a coherent picture.
      IOW, they all agree.
      So that is the base case for bogosity of adjustments.
      Then we come to the historical accounts, from all manner of sources.
      Newspaper articles, text books, photography, art, and well known historical events.
      There is a vast and consistent amount of all of the above, and they all track very closely with the unadjusted time series graphs. Glaciers retreating and advancing at various times, wooden ships making it through the northwest passage, heat and droughts causing famines and migrations…
      It all adds up to a highly coherent story.
      All of which contradicts the revisionism of the alarmist doomsday mongers.

  18. “Any production from new oil and gas fields, beyond those already in production or development, is incompatible with limiting warming to 1.5°C”

    ALL of the IPCCs 1.5C scenarios/ predictions are incompatible with reality and the scientific method. We DEMAND they restrict their demands to skillful and validated science. Try making a model that works first you communist loons.

  19. Global Witness is a UK non-profit advocacy group. Financial highlights, in pounds from its most recent reported year of 2017: revenue (mainly donations) 10.8MM, staff costs 5.6MM (99 employees), rent .27 MM, board remuneration .35 MM, support 1.4MM and fundraising .92 MM. Revenue is allocated to a few “campaigns” while cost items are allocated among three “charitable activities” including conflict/fragile states, corruption and forest/land/climate (this is the largest allocation). From the annual report it appears that most of the revenue is spent in the UK on internal operations, rather than in supporting external groups. George Soros and foundations controlled by him are the main donors. Others include the Swedish and Norwegian governments and the Fidelity charitable arm.

    https://www.globalwitness.org/en/about-us/financial-statements/

  20. Wildly tangential – but that’s OK – coz climate is a “non-linear system” and tangents are non-linear – seeing as how they go off to infinity\singularity\division by zero.
    On my travels (I do Wonky Drive – not up to Warp Drive just yet) and found this on the wall of my present ‘travellers rest’

    A nice story, can we think of anything or anyone or anything it parallels with in contemporary time….

    Titus Oates was born in Oakham in 1649. After attending Cambridge University, where he was described as “a great dunce” Oates went into The Church but was ordered to leave after he was accused of blasphemy while under the influence of alcohol. He became a Chaplain in The Royal Navy but was dismissed for engaging in a homosexual act.
    In 1678, in an attempt to revive his fortunes, Oates revealed a “Popish Plot – a Catholic plan to murder Charles 2nd and put his Catholic brother James on the throne to be followed by the killing of thousands of Protestants.
    He was believed because his claim fanned a popular discontentment –unemployment was rife and Catholics were a ready-made scapegoat. He was also a confident and persuasive public speaker. Several innocent whilst Oates was highly praised. Parliament gave him a State Apartment in Whitehall and a huge annual allowance.
    It took until 1685 before it was found that Oates had made it all up. He was arrested, found guilty of perjury and imprisoned for life. He was pilloried and pelted by passers-by and condemned to be regularly whipped.
    He was released from prison in 1688 by William 3rd and given a sum of £10 per week. He married in 1693, became a Baptist. He died in relative obscurity on July 12 1705

  21. I guess they backed off taking control of the internet at the UN for now…with Trump around. Taking charge of oil will do for now as a side effort.

  22. Every movement, good or bad, has a noble cause on which it is founded. Global Witness apparently claims to be opposed to corruption from corporations. Ironically, their first endeavor was to fight logging done by the Khmer Rouge. The Khmer Rouge was also founded in the noble cause of fighting corruption (in the Cambodian government).

    It is truly astounding the amount of evil that is done in the name of noble causes. How can you tell if an organization or movement is truly for the noble cause or corrupting it? Here is the litmis test: Do they exaggerate the that to the noble cause? If yes, they are corrupt or in the process of being corrupted.

    The climate change issue is always exaggerated, indicating significant corruption. Other groups using the exaggerated climate threat to raise money or push their agenda, are just doubling down on corruption.

  23. I completely agree with the IPCC – we should immediately shutoff all oil and gas and related energy to the IPCC members, contributors, and supporters right now.

    No traveling except by bicycle or goat, no heating or light except by wood fire, and no lighting except by tallow wax candles. No conferences, telephones, TVs, computers, fans, air conditioning, or any plastics.

    This is a great way to control the waste of our precious oil resources.

    • Robert, You’re going to restrict them to tallow wax candles and deprive them of whale oil lamps. How could you be so cruel?

  24. “all can thrive within the planet’s boundaries”

    Without fossil fuels, thriving within the planet’s boundaries (whatever that means) would be MUCH more difficult.

Comments are closed.