Firstly, the wild oil speculation bubble in 2008 was not driven based on 'fears over peak oil having been reached'. That's not a correct assertion to begin with.
Secondly, the large majority of the most notable World Peak Oil proponents (i.e. those that say we are currently at or very near it) are not people directly associated with the Oil/Gas industries, and very few stood to gain much, if anything, by advancing the theory. Believe it or not, there's also LOTS of money to be made by 'denying' it^.
Furthermore, it's not a 'lie' in the slightest, it is a 'real thing', the only question is ... when will it occur, and what will the depletion and price curves look like in response to the physical/geologic realities in play? That's what the bickering is over.
In reality, we may have a nice little bonanza here in the US for a short time (though I've also read credible research that suggests getting back to our 1970 peak is a pipe dream, and that if it DOES happen, it will be very short lived due to the very high depletion rates for tight shale oil), but it's a blip on the radar in terms of world production, which has been at a plateau-level since roughly 2004, despite rising US production, and dramatically increased price.
US oil production rising for a short time due to new extraction technologies does not negate 'Peak Oil' or make it a 'lie'.
We are likely AT world peak production right now, barring some hugely massive unforeseen bonanza (Arctic, perhaps?) somewhere/somehow.
And because US oil is mostly sold on the world market (and much of it 'owned' by foreign corps anyways), afa price to the consumer goes, it's largely irrelevant that we're seeing increased production here. If it falls elsewhere (like Cantarell, Mexico, which is in steep, permanent decline, as is the North Sea) in the world, then we're not likely to see cheap gas here in the States.
'Our Oil' ... is not really 'ours', you see? It's just a slice of the world 'pie'. And price in much of the world (esp. countries with no state-owned oil company, like the US) is ultimately still largely dictated by the World Demand/World Supply equation.
The simple fact that we're turning to tar sands (like Alberta) tight shale (like the Bakken) and Deepwater Drilling and talking about developing uber-costly places like the Arctic ... along w/the fact that world production is failing to increase over the last decade despite rising prices ... should tell any intelligent person all they need to know ... the 'cheap', easy to get-at oil ... is gone. That's the only reason that money would start to flow to 'expensive' sources. They KNOW that the error of cheap oil (i.e. cheaply recoverable) is OVER. It's BEEN USED UP.
From here on out, we're looking at more and more expensive oil, as costs to produce it will inexorably rise. The only way places like the Bakken will be developed (they've KNOWN about this oil for like 100 years, folks) is if the price for oil stays high.
There's really no 'lie' involved at all, and your 'Daily Wealth' article is bunko-conspiracy-theory nonsense, IMHO.
^ For an example of the way 'the lie' can work in the opposite way, consider this paragraph from the OP article carefully:
The EIA is the statistical arm of the U.S. Department of Energy. Its predictions could help color the department’s decisions on nearly two dozen pending applications to export liquefied natural gas to countries that do not have free trade agreements with the United States. The Energy Department already has granted five LNG export licenses.
What they mean here is ... the greater the IMPRESSION of abundance of Natural Gas wealth that is produced by the EIA reports, the more likely the Energy Dept is to give licenses to domestic producers to liquify the products of our little 'fracking-based' NG 'bonanza' so that it can be sold to the highest international bidder, rather than kept here as a strategic resource and lower-priced option for domestic manufacturers.
And this is far from the only mechanism by which creating the OPPOSITE impression from 'Peak Whatever' can result in people making lots more money than they would make if the general impression promulgated by 'the authorities' was that of 'restricted' or 'peak' supplies.
= new reply since forum marked as read
