Two days after the election, the Washington Times has an editorial on peak oil: Prognosticating oil supplies - The Washington Times: Editorials/OP-ED - November 03, 2004, I quote: “A rather alarming theory about oil supplies — which had been discussed mostly among fringe economists and on quirky Internet Web sites — has recently received much broader attention. Signs of the theory being taken seriously include a recent front-page story in the Wall Street Journal and advocacy by Matthew Simmons, a much-respected investment banker and former Bush energy adviser.”
Matthew Simmons is much-respected, huh? Maybe because he’s the head and namesake of the #1 energy investment bank in the world. That might have something to do with it.
At least Michael Duffey mentions him, the CNN/Money article omits him entirely: Peak-oil fringe group gains mainstream attention - Nov. 3, 2004
I’ll post more about this later.
4 users commented in " Prognosticating oil supplies - The Washington Times: Editorials/OP-ED - November 03, 2004 "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackNotice where these articles appeared: the Washington Times, the house organ of the Right, owned by S-Y Moon, and CNN/Money. Once again the Right wing and financial press shows a superior grasp of what’s going on in the world and greater foresight than the well-meaning bumblers at the Times and Post.
My only remaining question: would you say that you and I more “fringe” or “quirky” (for believing in the Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy)?
Yeah, that’s precisely a point I want to make. i.e. that the financial world is finally waking up to this and is going to spearhead a big sea change in energy priorities simply because all these companies that used to make tons of money off of oil are going to have to adapt to less and less cheap oil. BP doesn’t have that Beyond Petroleum ad campaign for nothing.
It’s an interesting question. Have the big oil firms rebranded themselves as “Energy” companies because it sounds better, or because they really view themselves as providers of energy who will transition to the ‘next big thing’ as oil diminishes.
It is true that big oil companies, Shell for one, are getting into renewables, particularly wind power. It would be fantastic if the market worked in this instance. Unfortunately I think people are the problem. Rather than adapt to change, I expect big oil will prefer to use its massive wealth to influence public policy instead. ANWR anyone?
Well, I think that they are rebranding because they know better than anyone else that they are running out of product to sell. e.g. Shell overstating (read: lying about) their reserves just to keep the shareholders happy.
It won’t matter if they try to use their wealth to influence public policy if oil starts to get really expensive. People will need energy no matter what the policy is. Whether it will be available in an economical, easy to use manner is another story.
Leave A Reply