The rapid increase in the world’s population over the last hundred years is not merely coincident with the rapid increase in oil production. It is the latter that has actually allowed (the word “caused” might be too strong) the former: that is to say, oil has been the main source of energy within industrial society. It is only with abundant oil that a large population is possible. It was industrialization, improved agriculture, improved medicine, the expansion of humanity into the Americas, and so on, that first created the modern rise in population, but it was oil in particular that made it possible for human population to grow as fast as it has been doing (Catton, 1982). When oil production drops to half of its peak amount, world population must also drop by half.

A good deal of debate has gone on about “peak oil,” the date at which the world’s annual oil production will reach (or did reach) its maximum and will begin (or did begin) to decline. The exact numbers are unobtainable, mainly because individual countries give rather inexact figures on their remaining supplies. The situation can perhaps be summarized by saying that at least 20 or 30 major studies have been done, and the consensus is that the peak is somewhere in the first or second decade of this century.

Most major studies place the date of “peak oil” somewhere between 2001 and 2020, and within that period a middle date seems rather more likely (Campbell, 2004, 2009; Gever et al, 1991; Oil Drum, 2010, February 4; Oxford University, 2010, March 23; Petrole, 2010, March 25; Simmons, 2006; Youngquist, 2000, October; 2008).

For years the main anomalies have been some American government forecasts: those of the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the US Department of Energy, and those of the US Geological Survey. However, Robert L. Hirsch of the US Department of Energy in 2005 produced “The Inevitable Peaking of World Oil Production,” the famous “Hirsch Report,” which begins with the sentence, “The era of plentiful, low-cost petroleum is reaching an end.” He goes on to say that “oil production is in decline in 33 of the world’s 48 largest oil-producing countries” (Hirsch, 2005, October, p. 5).

After the “peak” itself, the next question is that of the annual rate of decline. Estimates tend to hover around 3 or 4 percent, which means production will fall to half of peak production by about 2030.

One solution that is sometimes proposed for the dilemma of fossil-fuel decline is a global campaign for the humane implementation of rapid population decline. With all due respect for the attempt to find a satisfying answer to the question of overpopulation, such a proposal would conflict with the available data on the rate of decline in fossil fuels. The annual rate of population decline, in a civilization in which fossil fuels are by far the most important sources of energy, must roughly equal the 3-percent (if not greater) annual rate of fossil-fuel decline.

Unfortunately there is no practical humane means of imposing a similar annual rate of decline on the world’s population. If we allow the loss of petroleum to take its course, a decline of 3 percent would result in a drop in world population to half its present level, i.e. to 3.5 billion, by about the year 2030. The only means, however, would be a rather grim one: famine.

A deliberate global campaign of rapid population decline, even with the immediate implementation of an utterly hypothetical fertility rate of zero (i.e. the implementation of a “zero-child policy”), would have far less dramatic results. The rate of population decline would exactly equal the death rate. (This is true by definition: “growth rate” equals “birth rate” minus “death rate”, and we have already postulated that “birth rate” would be zero.) The present death rate is only about 1 percent (CIA, 2010). At such a rate of decline, the global population in the year 2030 would still be about 5.7 billion. There would therefore be no means for a program of planned population decline to work before the effects of fossil-fuel depletion took their own toll. (Such figures, of course, disregard any other possible catastrophic future events such as famine [the above-mentioned means that is likely to prevail], disease, war, and a thousand other side-effects of societal breakdown.)

I’m quite aware of the fact that discussion of demographic rates of any sort as fixed numbers only makes sense with a short time span. But that’s exactly what I’m doing. I’m talking about the next two decades. That’s short in terms of the events I’m discussing. So, yes, with a population that will obviously age (because of the hypothetical zero birth rate), the death rate will increase slightly. In very rough figures, yes, it will go from 1 percent to 2 percent. However, even that 2 percent does not match the 3 to 4 percent annual decline in oil production. The basic point remains the same: that is it utterly impossible, using any techniques short of mass murder (e.g., biochemical warfare and other techniques of the Dr. Strangelove variety), to reduce the population rapidly enough.

Link -
http://www.populationmedia.org/2011/02/10/oil-decline-rate-and-population/
==================
Over 2 Billion Baby Boomers are set to retire, the leave us forever, over the next 30-40 years, but that alone & over that duration will not be enough, Energy is the Key!

The industrial doomsday scenario put forward by peak oil theorists isn't just for far flung voices on the Internet anymore.

Peak oil is not a problem of Earth's supplies: there's plenty of oil in a variety of forms. The difficulty is in how much energy it takes to recover and process it. And if it hasn't happened already, soon the demand for energy commodities will soar past existing production capacity and crash headlong into the brick wall of declining discoveries.

The economic effects of this could be devastating to the human populations within industrialized societies, to say the least.  

That's not just the line from Noam Chomsky, Michael Rupert and Dmitry Orlov: the second largest company in the world, Shell International, a major player in the energy commodities industries, is saying it too.

In a recent "Signals & Signposts" report by Shell, forecasting energy scenarios through 2050, the oil giant predicted a growing volatility in the price of oil and a coming period of "extraordinary opportunity or misery."

As the demand for oil buts up against actual production and remaining reserves, the climbing price of oil will cause the gross domestic product of all nations to decline, they predict.

In another section, Shell calls these economic effects "Depression 2.0." Though that scenario is introduced as "unlikely," the rest of the report does not paint a rosy outlook.

Climate and environment
Shell predicts that as the energy industry struggles to meet global demand, "environmental tension will swell and spread."

They add: "Political, industrial and individual choices will determine whether these tensions can be resolved and whether the solutions will be benign or harmful to us."

Within what they called a "zone of uncertainty," energy entrepreneurs will have "extraordinary opportunity" for growth if the right assemblage of technology is made available. However, Shell adds that competition and "natural innovation" in energy efficiency would only account for a moderation in demand of about 20 percent by 2050.

Meanwhile, between 2000 and 2050, demand for easily accessible energy will triple, they predict.

China, Shell adds, is preparing to institute its own cap-and-trade system for regulating carbon emissions. Businesses around the world, they noted, have already largely started to accept that climate regulations will soon become a reality for global trade and have begun to budget accordingly.

But even the most rapid improvements in renewable technologies, like electric cars or microorganisms that convert captured carbon into liquid fuel, won't help much in the near term.

"New energy technologies must be demonstrated at commercial scale and require thirty years of sustained double-digit growth to build industrial capacity and grow sufficiently to feature at even 1-2% of the energy system," they wrote.

The bumpy peak
Shell predicts in clear terms what journalist Michael Rupert said in his recent film "Collapse": more shocks to the industry loom ahead, which will lead to increased price volatility, producing rapid inflation and deflation on the consumer level.

And if that phenomena hasn't already begun, they add, it will be in full-boar by the end of this decade.

Interestingly enough, Shell also predicts that "[the] longer the delay in climate policy action, the more likely shocks become."

One such example would be the potential for peak output in Saudi Arabia. If it were a reality and word got out that their fields would be in permanent decline, it could produce extreme price variations and social unrest amid worsening economic conditions. A series of US diplomatic cables from 2007-2009, published by secrets outlet WikiLeaks, revealed that the former head geologist in charge of exploration for the Saudi oil firm Aramco, who retired in 2004, has expressed very serious concerns that this was happening.

Link to article -
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/15/shell-report-predicts-peak-oil-now-or-soon...

Link to full Shell Report -
http://www-static.shell.com/static/aboutshell/downloads/aboutshell/signals_signp...

HOUSTON—Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's largest publicly traded oil company, is struggling to find more oil.

In its closely watched annual financial report released Tuesday, the company said that for every 100 barrels it has pumped out of the earth over the past decade, it has replaced only 95.  

It's a conundrum shared by most of the other large Western oil-producing companies, which are finding most accessible oil fields were tapped long ago, while promising new regions are proving technologically and politically challenging.

Exxon said in the report that it more than made up for the shortfall in oil by stocking up on natural gas, mostly through its acquisition of XTO Energy Inc. last year.

"The good old days are gone and not to be repeated," says Fadel Gheit, an analyst with Oppenheimer and Co. Bringing additional reserves from gas "is not going to give you the same punch" that oil would, he said.

Finding the equivalent, in either oil or natural gas, of a barrel in the earth for every one the company produces—a 100% reserve replacement rate—has become extraordinarily tough. Exxon boasted this was the 17th consecutive year of hitting this mark, but analysts agree that without the XTO deal, Exxon would have fallen far short this year.

The shift toward gas—and troubles with finding oil—has emerged as a theme for the giant Western oil companies. Royal Dutch Shell PLC's chief executive said last month the European company will produce more gas than oil next year for the first time in its 104-year history.

Exxon and others have also flocked to the oil-rich sands of Northern Alberta, Canada, but digging out the oil across vast swathes of forest comes at relatively high cost and generates concerns about the environmental impact.

Link -
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704409004576146362117313094.html
==============
The big oil companies are going backward on Reserves, unyet OPEC with many old fields is not???

Forgoing the argument over tax levels, government debt and the relative Economic effects for a moment, where I have difficulty is understanding the per litre comparison, at its peak in 2008 (around $1.60 a litre), versus the current & likely future pricing!

Australia is already at $1.40 a litre and given the recent rise in Oil prices it is likely that we will see $1.50 a litre over the next couple of weeks.

However, given the following, it is difficult to understand the Price movements, without considering Price gouging -
1) Oil is pre-dominantly purchased in US$'s, as is the case with Australia.

2) Our exchange rate against the USA is now averaging 3-4 cents better against than we did at its Peak in 2008.

3) The Peak Price of Oil per barrel in 2008 was US$147 and the current Price has been around the US$85-$91 range, with a surge over the last week or so, from US$84 to US$95-$96 today!  

In respect of tax levels, government debt and the relative Economic effects, I would observe -
1) That it is disingenuous of any government to say that it is using a tax levy (Petrol &/or Carbon), as a means of lowering consumption.
Clearly, as has been seen from the Petrol levy, its has not lowered consumption, but it has raised government Revenue.
Both the Right & Left of Australian Politics has embraced this tax!

2) In terms of government Debt, the Petrol Levy, excise or whatever you want to call it, the Australia levy has contributed to a much better balanced Debt situation, than can be seen in the USA and other countries.
But, that balance is not solely due to the Petrol Tax, there are many contributing factors, with some coming from the Libs & some from the Labs.
From an overall perspective, both the Libs & the Labs have done better than most of their "colleagues" in other countries, but quite a bit less, than they should have done, over the last 50-60 years!

3) In terms of Economic Benefits, clearly Tax (Personal &/or Business) is part of the mix, but it is not the whole shooting match.

In the final analysis, a sustainable & balanced Economy, should be the overall, long term aim.

That objective has been disregarded, to greater & lesser extents, depending on which countries you look at, but from an overall perspective ME & NOW has been much more dominant than US & THEN.

Well, THEN (the future) has finally become NOW, but ME is still clearly in the ascendency!  

If you were in charge of manipulating the world’s financial markets today, what would you do? It wouldn’t be an easy job. If my job was to preserve the status quo for just a little bit longer and prevent the dollar crisis from unleashing even more geopolitical stability and falling stock prices, I’d try and get oil prices down. Pronto!

Today, it looks for all the world like governments (through central banks) are doing their best to prop up stock markets by driving down the price of oil and precious metals. The stock market is about the only instrument left that the authorities can use to make people feel richer. For Ben Bernanke and his crew of loyal Keynesians, it's imperative that new money flows into the stock market to keep people feeling wealthy.

--After all, what else is left on the household balance sheet in the Western World? House prices in most of the Western World (Australia infamously excepted) have fallen and destroyed trillions in equity. Wages are falling in the developed world as globalisation commodities labour. It means everyday low prices for goods made from Asia. But it means hollowed out manufacturing industries in mature economies.

--So yes. The only way to keep people from brooding on all that-and their seeming powerlessness to do anything about it - is to keep stock prices high. That makes everyone feel good. And the zeitgeist of the age is that how you feel about things matters more than the underlying reality of what's really happening.

--Trouble is, when Libyan oil production is down by 75%, people are going to start worrying that high oil prices could crash global growth. A severe oil shortage is just the sort of event to ruin everyone's day. It would make clear the simple fact that the U.S. dollar crash is going to be a far more disruptive event than the Lehman Brother's failure of 2008.

--But wait! How about Saudi spare capacity to the rescue!? Oil retreated overnight when the Saudis told everyone that there's more than enough oil to go around for everyone. The Saudis say that they have more than 4.4 million barrels per day in spare production capacity. With a full-strength Libya pumping out 1.2 million barrels per day, the Saudis would appear to have everything covered.

--See? Nothing to worry about. Stocks rallied and oil and gold fell on the Saudi assurances. Or is that what really happened?

--First, do the Saudis really have the oil? U.S. diplomats privately think the Saudis have over-stated their proven oil reserves by a whopping 40%, according to Wikileaks cables published by the Guardian in early February. This wasn't exactly news to people who've been following the story of Peak Oil for a while. But it might have been news to a lot of other people. Maybe there isn't as much cheap, easy-to-produce, high-grade crude oil as we thought.

--But the oil price could have fallen overnight for an entirely different reason. The Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) raised margin requirements on crude oil trading for the second time this week. It's expected other futures exchanges will follow suit. This is similar to action taken on other commodity contracts experiencing unusual volatility.

--Is it a transparent attempt to drive oil prices lower (and stock prices higher) by squeezing out speculators? Or is it a legitimate attempt to squeeze out destabilising speculation by oil traders? Or some of each?

--I asked Slipstream Trader Murray Dawes if he thought the ICE action was an attempt to rig the oil market by squeezing traders. Murray wrote back:
The futures markets do have the right to adjust the margin requirements when the volatility explodes outside of usual levels. A move such as the one we saw in oil markets over the last week would be enough to blow a lot of traders out of the water. I agree that it is a means to lower open positions at a time of high volatility, and thus affect the price. But the clearing house does have to make sure that market players have enough in their accounts to cover losses. If they don't then everything comes crumbling down.
--Murray is a sensible trader, whereas I am tempted to believe regulators are keen to muddle price signals. Why? High oil and energy prices tell the rest of the world there really is a dollar crisis. They tell investors and traders that Ben Bernanke's policies are inflationary...and that inflation is already a serious and politically destabilising problem in countries vulnerable to food and fuel inflation.

In the meantime, keep an eye out for March 11th. Facebook groups are popping up and calling for “a day of rage” in Saudi Arabia. This, of course, is what the oil market fears most: that the currency crisis roiling the Middle East makes its way to the world’s indispensable oil producer. Don’t count on oil prices being down for long.

Link -
http://www.moneymorning.com.au/20110225/a-day-of-rage.html
================
Nice pick up Pansi and it says, pretty much what I was thinking.

Nothing to do with "free markets", all about trying to "manipulate markets"!

And, in days gone bye, a perfectly productive and workable ploy.

Today, it simply confirms that TPTB will try anything to maintain the Status Quo, even though it won't work and is simply delaying the inevitable!

Delay? It may, but not for long.

Work? It can not!

March 1 (Bloomberg) -- Oil surged to a 29-month high amid speculation unrest in the Middle East and northern Africa will disrupt supplies. U.S. stocks sank on concern rising energy costs will threaten the economic recovery, while Treasuries reversed losses and gold advanced to an all-time high.

Oil for April delivery rallied 2.7 percent to settle at $99.63 a barrel, the highest since Sept. 30, 2008. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index slid 1.6 percent to 1,306.33 at 4 p.m. in New York after yesterday capping a third straight monthly gain. Ten- year Treasury yields lost three basis points to 3.40 percent after rising six points earlier. Gold futures for April delivery climbed as much as 1.8 percent to a record $1,435.60 an ounce.

Energy prices jumped as unrest threatened to spread from Libya to Iran, OPEC’s second-largest oil producer. Concern higher energy costs will hurt consumer spending and corporate profits overshadowed data showing that U.S. manufacturing grew at the fastest pace since 2004. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said the increase in oil and other commodity prices probably won’t cause a permanent increase in broader inflation, suggesting the central bank will continue its stimulus efforts.

Today’s surge in crude oil came as Iran, the second-largest producer in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, arrested opposition leaders to derail protests scheduled today. The European Union yesterday imposed an arms embargo and other sanctions on Libya, and the U.S. said it has frozen $30 billion in Libyan assets.

Saudi Arabia’s Tadawul All Share Index tumbled 6.8 percent, the most since November 2008, as concern deepened political unrest in the Middle East may spread to the kingdom. Arabian authorities “should immediately release” Tawfiq al-Amir a Shiite cleric in the country, who was apparently arrested after he called for a constitutional monarchy and equal rights for Shiites, Human Rights Watch said on its website yesterday.

Link -
http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=adCbzNc4WM7k&pos=1
=======================
Oil up, Gold up, DOW Down 168 to 12,058, DOW Future continuing to fall.

I would suggest a rather unpleasant day on Australian markets.

March 3 (Bloomberg) -- Stocks rallied, sending benchmark U.S. indexes to their biggest gains of the year,

as oil slipped

and reports signaled the global economy is strengthening.

U.S. equities advanced for the fourth time in five days , underscoring the Federal Reserve’s assessment that the labor market is improving.

Applications for unemployment benefits fell by 20,000 to 368,000 last week, the Labor Department said. Economists forecast claims would climb to 395,000, according to the median estimate in a Bloomberg News survey. The data comes before tomorrow’s monthly jobs report, which is forecast to indicate payrolls rose by 195,000 workers in February after a 36,000 gain the previous month.

Oil lost 0.3 percent to $101.91 a barrel after reports that Venezuela offered to mediate a resolution to the crisis in Libya, which has cut crude supplies from Africa’s third-biggest producer.

The Dollar Index, a gauge of the U.S. currency against six major peers, lost 0.2 percent to the lowest level since November.

Link -
http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aIwHrWNpUleI&pos=2
==========================
Q. Can you believe the media?
A. No!

From a point in mid February, when WTi was priced at around US$84, it hit a recent high of US$102.75, it very briefly traded as low as $100 yesterday, before regaining lost ground and it is now trading at $102.12.

Aside from the methods used to arrive at US Unemployment & Employment figures, being somewhat abstract, how is it possible to say that the current trend of a declining Unemployment rate, is "unexpected"?

Unless the US Economy was now falling off a cliff, their unemployment rate should be "expected" to fall, as there should be some 350,000 plus Baby Boomers, now retiring every month, thus allowing the way for Unemployment numbers to fall.

A more correct guage of the health of the US Economy, would be "the total Employment numbers" or as the US uses the Non Farm Payroll numbers.


Notwithstanding the small recent increase, this indicator is a long way from where it should be.

In fact, given that the US population increases around 1% each year and that the Employment number was 137.5 million as the Great Employment Recession commenced in late 2008, that means Employment numbers would normally have risen by over 4 million since then, but they have actually declined by 7.5 million, according to "official" BLS figures.

That is a negative variation of 11.5 million in just 3 years, in the Total Employment numbers!

Given the continuing Economic drag created by 350,000 plus Boomer retirements (each month), the likelihood of continuing Energy (Oil etc) problems and the onset of Climate Change problems, I am unable to see, "how the US &/or Global Economy will strengthen"!

Consumption has tripled over the last four decades but supply has stalled over the past seven years, and the rate of reserve replacement has not kept pace with demand since the 1970s.  

We are not running out of oil yet. We have, however, reached an apparent limit to the amount of oil that we can produce every day. That is because newly discovered fields are, at best, replacing supply from older declining and depleted fields.

Peak oil is not a theory, as Lynch claims. It is a body of empirical observations based on the history of oil production decline in major producing areas of the world. These studies show that most of the world’s giant oil fields are declining at increasing rates. New reserves are located in ever deeper, more expensive and harsher drilling environments. Much of what is being found and produced is poor-quality oil, and that means higher cost and more time to become available as supply.

Link -
http://evworld.com/blogs/index.cfm?authorid=12&blogid=952&archive=1
==================
Anyone for a little Texas Tea, hurry along now, the cup is now less than half full & there's no refills!