Most public debates are poorly structure for actually resolving disputes. I suggest ways that a government-sponsored climate debate might actually be of value.
The argument that electric vehicles are poised for a market breakout needs to be treated with a good deal of caution.
NY Attorney General’s charge that Exxon’s carbon price assumptions are inconsistent and misleading displays his ignorance of business practices, not devotion to the law.
Although there are many claims that the renewable energy revolution is unstoppable, it appears that the removal of heavy subsidies does just that.
Reports of oil industry investment in renewable energy and electricity should be taken with a large dose of salt, as this has happened before only to be abandoned.
Two prominent economists, Robert Solow and Paul Krugman, provide a lesson in why you shouldn’t go beyond your field of expertise, as they misinterpret past oil market moves.
The current craze for predicting ‘peak oil demand’ brings to mind past energy revolutions that failed. The reasons for their appeal (to some) are illuminating.
Those arguing for U.S. leadership on climate change ignore the fact that most energy policies have been misguided and even harmful.
The shareholder vote requiring Exxon to address the possible impact of climate change on its business accomplishes little and ignores the long history of outsiders advising oil companies on their business. Peak oil supply was merely one instance, but …
Those promoting the idea of a near-term peak in oil demand do not seem to be aware of many of the historical antecedents.
The efforts to control coal smoke in 19th century Britain resembles current environmental debates in many ways, mostly in our inability to have rational consideration of the problem and solutions.
All sides should support the intensive collection of data about the environment and our energy industry, as debates are only settled by information, not political pressure.
New supply is likely to come from a number of areas, from Mexico to the Barents Sea, and the picture is brighter than it has been for years.
Oil supply tends to be lumpy, with only a few countries showing higher production at any given time. Additionally, the degree to which production declines offset increases plays a major role in determining the net increase in a period.
To many of those marching for “Science” today are likely to be unscientific in their behavior, embracing particular theories and eschewing debate.
A more aggressive U.S. policy in the Middle East could raise fears of a wider conflict, which would elevate oil prices.
Tesla’s recent news is positive, but the real challenges are still ahead. Delivering batteries and cars in volume and with minimal quality problems to keep the company afloat is not a sure thing.
The growing anti-pipeline opposition movement is based on false beliefs and ignorance, not rational decision-making.
Advocates complain about electric vehicle myths promoted by skeptics, but don’t really address them.
Fears that the reduction in upstream investment since the oil price decline will cause market tightness and a new price spike in 3-5 years are overblown and ignore the role of falling costs.
World natural gas prices have dropped sharply, even as massive new LNG plants come on-line. However, recent price levels are likely to persist, putting high-cost exporters under severe pressure.
Although it is claimed that evidence against fracking is accumulating, this represents primarily scientific ignorance on the part of opponents.
Expectations that oil prices will remain high–or even increase–require OPEC compliance more than any other factor.
Solar advocates point to the number of jobs created by the industry, but a little logic suggests that this is either misdirection or poor analysis. No other industry brags about its labor inefficiency.
In judging forecasts, it is more valuable to know why they were good or bad than to simply note the result.
The belief that the technology underlying electric vehicles is advancing so fast that world oil demand will peak within five to ten years appears yet another example of irrational exuberance.
People who appear to be expert often aren’t, and on issues like peak oil it pays to be skeptical. Experience goes a long way towards spotting errors.
The belief that subsidizing technologies like Battery Electric Vehicles will reduce costs as sales accumulate, the strategy followed by Elon Musk, appears inferior to spending on research to lower costs, as Bill Gates and the Breakthrough Energy Coalit…
India’s goal of 175 GW of renewable energy in five years is unlikely to be an optimal approach for many reasons.
Although there are real economic issues that could lead to world oil demand peaking, it does not appear imminent. Most of the alarmist predictions have no more credibility than peak oil supply warnings a decade ago.
A battle is forming over the incoming administration’s plans to change regulations, but the current patchwork system is in need of reform, having become unwieldy and unnecessarily burdensome.
Claims that solar power can prosper without government support contradict reality, and advocates’ dishonesty about this could haunt them later.
Questions about whether EPA nominee is a climate change denialist reflects a simplistic, and incorrect, view of the issue of global warming.
Noted developments, good and mostly bad, in the past year’s energy sector.
Prices have risen and are predicted by many to go higher, but volatility is all but certain to be the word of the year for the oil industry, as uncertainty regarding geopolitics, global growth and production is probably as great as it has been at any t…
Too often, environmentalists rely on warnings of catastrophe, which damages there credibility.
President Trump might create problems for the petroleum industry by fighting against purchases of equipment from China, but also, if his Middle East policies create instability in that region.
Now that an agreement has been reached between OPEC and non-OPEC oil producers, here’s what to look for to find evidence of price direction.
The Obama administration’s decision to halt the completion of the pipeline will hearten its many opponents, but will have no significant practical impact.
Sure, most people think the job is all ribbon-cutting, Hollywood starlets and red carpets, but the truth is much more mundane and, well, unappetizing.
The death of Fidel Castro will hopefully accelerate the movement away from leftist economic policies throughout the developing world, reducing waste in energy production and increasing oil production.
Examination of the evolution of the power market suggests that reviving America’s coal industry would require gargantuan efforts.
The argument that “conventional” oil production peaked in 2005 is a simple matter of semantics that is misleading and irrelevant. Peak oil advocates like T. Boone Pickens simply don’t understand oil supply.
Don’t expect dramatic action by President Trump, as the biggest challenges (such as coal miner’s unemployment) are beyond the ability of the President to resolve.
The election should result in relatively minor changes in energy policy, especially as Clinton appears likely to take a rational approach to fracking.
Although some triumphantly suggest that the possible downgrading of Exxon’s reserves reflects the threat of climate change, it is really just an accounting measure due to low oil prices.
Everyone has something to fear in this Energy House of Horrors!
Fears about fracking of shales has spread to Europe, but appears to be based on poor research rather than science.
The natural gas price bulls are stampeding, driven by months of lower-than-normal inventory builds and falling production. But the much higher productivity of wells in the Marcellus and Utica shale formations suggests that current prices will allow ma…