I had pretty surreal experience in TV land on Monday.

I had the privilege of appearing on the Fox Business channel, to talk about why oil prices are so high and what the future holds for oil. (See it here: Part 1 and Part 2.)

In typical TV interview format, I was set up in opposition to another energy analyst who is well known for his cornucopian views. Him on one side of the "panel," me on the other, and the moderator.

You probably know what happened next: I sat there trying to stare at a barely visible camera in a small studio in San Francisco with only an ear bud and no video, thanks to the 5-second delay from New York, while the moderator gave the vast majority of our two short segments to the cornucopian, who called me a "peak freak."

I had to grin at that one. (Personally, I prefer the less pejorative "peaker.")

As he carried on about how technology will save the day, achieving vast increases in oil extraction, and about the 12 trillion barrels of oil left to exploit worldwide, I could barely stifle myself.

Unfortunately, they afforded me no opportunity to respond to any of those points. They only seemed to want my opposing view—that oil would stay more or less permanently over $100 a barrel—to make the segment "fair and balanced."

I tried to explain the importance of flow rates, the concept of a plateau at the top of Hubbert's Peak, the limits of enhanced oil recovery, and the time it takes to bring new solutions to market, but my words seemed to fall on deaf ears.

As any student of peak oil investing knows, this stuff is complex. It's hard to talk about in TV sound bites. Especially when you have to explain the gulf between the 12 trillion barrels of original oil in place that my opponent was talking about, and the 1 trillion barrels of remaining recoverable oil that I was talking about.

Presumably, Fox Business thought it best to leave it to the viewer to figure that one out.

What can I tell ya. I did what I could with it. Another appearance is scheduled for tomorrow. Maybe I'll get a few more words in next time.

Evolution of a Peak Freak

I really can't blame the media for their reluctance to face up to peak oil. It's an unpleasant concept and it immediately strikes fear into one's heart.

I have often reflected on how coming to grips with peak oil is much like the process of grieving, as identified by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross in her 1969 book, On Death and Dying. In peaker terms, I'd describe it like this:

1. Denial: "There's plenty of oil out there, and we can drill our way out of this."
2. Anger: "Why aren't those bastards drilling our way out of this?"
3. Bargaining: "Well maybe ANWR, the continental offshore, the tar sands, and slightly more efficient cars will fix it."
4. Depression: "Oh man, we're screwed, it's too big a problem for me, I might as well give up."
5. Acceptance: "I'm ready for the second half of the Age of Oil and I'm going to find a way forward."

Stage One: Denial

My interview segment was an all-too-typical display of denial. Great: that's Stage One. It's a start.

Then I mused: How long have we been living on the banks of denial? And it slightly depressed me today to discover that I wrote an article by that very title back in September 2005, which I could have written today:

Energy will continue to get more and more expensive. In a short while, you won't be able to afford to fill the tank on an SUV. You will learn to like wearing sweaters, and living without A/C. If you live in a big city or a suburb, you will probably have to move. If you're in one of the red-hot real estate markets in the US, the value of your property will take a couple of sickening drops. Your money and investments will devalue. You will find it increasingly difficult to buy—or even get—food. Water will get scarcer, more expensive, and harder to clean.

Let me tell you, it gives me absolutely no pleasure to say that I was right. I've been trying to help keep this from happening for over a decade, and I've never wanted to be right less in my life

Yet, there are critics who claim that people like me are part of some unnamed shadowy conspiracy of "liberal elites" determined to destroy the economy, and other even less charitable characterizations. They say we're all congenital doom-and-gloomers.

I used to puzzle over that, until I realized that it was just denial.

Most peak oil deniers, I have found, are incredibly resistant to any sort of detailed discussion involving facts and numbers, and I have learned better than to argue with them.

But the fire in my belly says that we had better hurry up and move on here, because time is a-wastin'.

Stage Two: Anger

Stage Two seems to have arrived. Just in the last few months, we've seen it everywhere in response to food shortages, fuel shortages, panic buying, huge price increases and crazy volatility in the markets.

Over the last week fuel price spikes, panic and outrage were seen in the UK as a two-day strike shut down the Grangemouth refinery in Scotland, which in turn shut down the Forties Pipeline, taking over 40% of the UK's North Sea oil and gas production offline. As of yet I haven't seen much considered discussion about how that kind of vulnerability should inform future energy policy, but there's plenty of finger pointing going on.

In Congress, the anger was evident as well. And as usual, they came up with some terrible and short-sighted proposals.

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) proposed a windfall oil profits tax, a notion supported by both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton. Such proposals always come up around earnings season for the oil companies, but they're a bad idea because oil companies have few economical prospects left, and reducing their economic prospects even further is counter-productive.

Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), along with Senator Clinton and others, called for an investigation into market manipulation, speculation and possible gouging. Most senators also appear to support a temporary halt to filling the SPR (see my article of last week, "High Gasoline Prices Are Here to Stay," on why that's a bad idea.)

Credit where it is due: President Bush was right to dismiss the suggestion, on the grounds that removing 68,000 barrels a day from an overall U.S. demand of 21 million barrels a day wouldn't help bring oil prices down.

Several senators also want to close the "Enron Loophole," and make energy trading subject to federal regulation. That much I fully support, since I've still got my own anger about the way they bent me over back in 2001.

Clinton and many other senators even proposed filing a WTO complaint against OPEC to pressure them into opening the spigots a little more. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!

Congress might as well tilt at wind turbines.

Even President Bush was forced to address the energy price issue again—a topic he has studiously avoided while America cried uncle—but he deflected the blame.

"I firmly believe that, you know, if there was a magic wand to wave, I'd be waving it, of course," he said during a news conference. "I've repeatedly submitted proposals to help address these problems, yet time after time Congress chose to block them."

As if he doesn't know that we can't drill our way out of this problem domestically!

I guess anger, like most things, comes around and goes around.

Anger is understandable, but it's not productive. We have to move on.

Stage Three: Bargaining

Bargaining seems to be the stage for our presidential contenders.

Senator McCain, joined by Senator Clinton, suggested a little gasoline tax holiday, which is akin to a first class upgrade on the Titanic.

Senator Obama called that one right, saying, "This isn't an idea designed to get you through the summer, it's an idea designed to get them through an election."

Indeed, a whole host of bargaining strategies are on offer from our leaders, such as:

• Increasing production of biofuels and other alternative fuels such as coal-to-liquids (CTL), when it's already clear that the consequences of both are unacceptable, and that the contribution they could make is too little to make a tangible difference.
• Raising the CAFE standard to 55 mpg by 2030, when PHEVs can already do that, and you can buy a car today anywhere in Europe that will do that. In 2030, remind me to mail them a letter saying thanks for nothin'.
• Spending another $150 billion toward renewable energy research. That's great, and I'm all for it, but it's also roughly what we've already been paying every year for the war in Iraq. Given the challenges we're facing, we should be investing at least as much in domestic alternative energy and rail as we are spending on the war, which ultimately is about perpetuating a dying paradigm of fossil-fuel burning automobiles.
• A lousy $1 billion for intercity rail, and $1.5 billion for public transit, when those are clearly—clearly—the most important and immediate investments we could contemplate. Instead of being at the bottom of the list, this should be at the top.

I suspect that Senator Obama may be nearing the end of the Bargaining phase, since he has quite sensibly called for a complete overhaul of US energy policy.

Moving Forward

Whoever is elected to the presidency, the next four years virtually guarantee that he or she will soon see Stage Four: Depression. There are going to be some extremely painful and difficult choices to be made.

So I hope that Acceptance will not be far behind. We have a great deal of transformation to accomplish, and very little time to do it.

Each of us has to go through this process in our own way and time. Every peaker is going or has gone through it. After five years of going through it, I'd put myself almost completely in Acceptance, although I do revisit the previous stages from time to time—another dynamic Kübler-Ross observed. It just seems to be how we're wired.

It's difficult. So I have some sympathy for every position on peak oil, including denial, because I've been there myself.

However, I have found one thing to be true time and time again: Action feels a lot better than inaction. Talking to other people about it, making plans to deal with it, and taking action helps to still that gong banging away in the brain, and relieve the tightness in the chest.

Reducing your energy consumption not only saves you money, it feels a lot better than raging at oil producers.

It also helps—a lot—to know that I can improve my odds, and hedge the inevitable losses of rising prices for everything, by investing wisely in energy. It really helps to take the sting out of a $70 fillup to see a couple hundred, or couple thousand dollar gain in the ol' portfolio.

Take a moment to think about where you are in this process, and may that reflection inform your future choices well.

Your friendly Energy and Capital peak freak,

Chris

"Energy stocks... The only way a human is going to make any money."

-- Matt Simmons, Peak Oil's first and most vocal proponent,
and founder of the country's last pure play energy investment banking firm.

Follow the money trail. Sign up for Energy and Capital now.

Enter Your E-mail Address Below:

By signing up, you'll also get our latest report, The Truth About Oil.

SQUARE-ONE AUTOMOTIVE:

THERE IS NO ULTIMATE SOLUTION TO THE ENERGY PROBLEM WE FACE, BECAUSE THE SOLUTION WOULD HAVE TO COVER SUCH A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. AND CHRIS NELDER SMELLS TO HIGH HEAVENS OF MARXIST/SOCIALIST THINK. SO BASICALLY, HIS TAKE ON THINGS SEEMS TO BE THAT WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE IN THE END ANYWAY, SO WHO CARES?

CTL TECHNOLOGY SEEMS TO BE THE BEST PATH TO FOLLOW FOR A VERY LONG TIME. THIS COUNTRY HAS AN ENORMOUS, NEARLY IMMEASURABLE RESERVE OF COAL. AND KICKING UP CONSUMPTION IN ORDER TO ELIMINATE FOREIGN OIL DEPENDENCE IS A MOVE WE NEED TO MAKE TRIGHT NOW, IF NOT SOONER. CTL BASED FUELS ARE UTTERLY COMPATIBLE WITH GASOLINE, DIESEL, AVIATION, KEROSENE AND OTHER DISTILLATE FUELS, SO THAT IT COULD SIMPLY BE DOVETAILED DIRECTLY INTO THE EXISTING DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM;PIECE OF CAKE. AND STARTUP TIME IS NEARLY IMMEDIATE. SO IT'S TIME TO STOP STANDING AROUND AND CHEWING OUR CUDs. LET'S ROCK.

A couple of months ago I witnessed a presentation that was nominally about alternative energy, but ultimately was a discussion about how oil was inevitably going to return to $50/bbl, it was just a matter of waiting out the uncertainties in the Middle East. So therefore there is no point in alternative energy. Very disappointing.

That's a really well written and informative piece - excellent.

This is one of the best articles I have read in a long time. I hope it get's sufficient coverage as it expresses my thoughts and ideas completely.
People had better heed the advice and warnings, the writings are on the walls and in everybodys mind. The thought of increasing gas prices makes my blood boil. The American people and voters need to cut back and that is all there is to it. Reduce the demand for fuel, and it's a beginning. The economy is in a mess. The new president whoever it may be is falling into a economic disaster that will be in a state of depression. We must take some individual steps to prevent this matter to get any worst. Voters who are vehicle operators can no longer remain in denial. We are the main cause for this fuel increase. We have placed our desires ahead of everything else because we never believed we would get into the position that we are in. We blamed everyone else for what has happened, never taken any of the responsibility. The truth of the matter is when we purhase vehicles that are gas guzzlers we are adding to the problem. When we speed on the highways and streets we are wasting fuel. When we don't take care and keep our vehicles properly tuned we are wasting gas. The demand for the fuel is beyond the capacity of the refineries to keep up. However, I do believe that oil Exeutives are delibertly contributing to the fuel crisis. Some of them are collecting milions of dollar bonuses when the fuel situation is not going away any time soon.
The fact remains that as the fuel prices rise so goes our food and everything else we need to exist. Stop the wasteful attitude and change your mind set. These problems will not go away by themselves. We caused the problems, so it is up to us to do what we can correct what is wrong. Take it for what is worth, if you believe it is tough times now wait, do nothing about it, and you will see for yourselves just how bad times really can get. I guess waiting is believing. Some people just won't listen and don't take corrective critizm wihtout feeling the pain first. We can hope for a miracle, but I doubt if anything positive will come from that hope. Action speaks louder than words, and that is what needs to be done. Take some positive action to improve the economy. If we do soemthing it is better than doing nothing. This country needs our help. We need more alternate fuel resources, and we need to cut back on what we do have. We can make a difference, if we all stick together and make it happen. If not this probably be the worst economic times for the baby-boomers in their life time. The children of these baby-boomers will also remember the hard times, they won't understand it but they will remember. The poor people. and the working class will also never forget this time of their lives. These times are going to worsen before it get's better. Even with doing your share to loosen the demand, it will take a little time to actually feel the results. But if everybody does something changes will take place.

Good article, well written and well thought out. Iremember telling some Brasilian Prof.'s in Floripa about Peak Oil in 03 and they were stunned. Iagree with your assessment aqbout depression and yet I am looking at it with forboding and also anticipation. It has been coming for at least 20 years, but maybe we can correct alot of old problems that we've been patching over. Wish I could be as sanguine about shale-I live in Western Colo.--NO WATER TO SPARE--NONE. i SEEN THE BUST IN THE 80'S. It will require a new way of doing the recovery w/o lots of water. Again, good show. Carlos

Great article, I hope enough people are getting to read it. I don't know if this would put me in the bargaining camp but don't you think it a little rash to write off all bio-fuels considering the progress that has been made by Algae based fuels and their potentials?

Regards

Gavin

Great article, I hope enough people are getting to read it. I don't know if this would put me in the bargaining camp but don't you think it a little rash to write off all bio-fuels considering the progress that has been made by Algae based fuels and their potentials?

Regards

Gavin

Thank for for this outstanding piece, Chris. I agree with you that right now, we need to be investing in public transportation and rail more than anything - it should be top priority. Having been in the acceptance phase for months now, I really look forward optimistically to the future that lies in store for our nation. May we learn to live sustainably imminently!

not sure about US oil shale per previous commenter. I dont disbelieve it exists...just that i have heard so little about such possibility. The move to do tar sands extraction underground to minimize surface contamination...might apply to oil shale?

This does not propose an answer...but makes an emotional bar to evaluate oneself against.
In this regard, it is GOOD.

a Canadian.

Nice read, about stuff we all know. No money in it.

Good article. I too am in the acceptance stage and have just finished building what we hope will be a zero energy house for ourselves. So, on the home front we will be saving a ton of bills with our energy use as well as feeling good about lessening our output of CO2.
What I wanted to ask you about was what types of companies do you suggest investing in when it comes to the new energy sources. I have been told that it is hard to decipher which companies are stable and on the rise. Especially in regard to solar manufacturing.... might you have any suggestions that have been paying off for you in your own portfolio?
thanks

it is well known that in order to usher in a new economy, all others must be destroyed.
(NEW WORLD ORDER ECONOMY)
Itīs the one percent who control the prices to keep the masses of people enslaved. IF THERE IS AN ADDICTION TO OIL, ITīS BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT PEOPLE ARE (FED)

Through hydrogen generators, a technology used for over 2 hundred years for free energy has been purposely obscured because this would free the people from the grips of big businesses control and profits. This free energy fuel is currently used to run cars and generate electricity from water. Itīs foolish to talk about any other fuel when when people are going to suffer because of lying politicians in bed with big business.

As you observed this news channel's
logo should be " Fairly Unbalanced News"

Im not sure how this website is run maybe I getting things from different writers but I get really confused when I get a email about the Bakken formation that supposedly has enough oil to support the US 40 years and its being produced right now for $16 a barrel. Then not to long after I get an email about how were screwed and I should start making some depression glass.

Chris
It seems like any article about peak oil should include a paragraph that suggests to the readers that they badger their leaders at all levels to learn about peak oil and do something about the problem. City, County, State and Federal governments should be striving as hard as they can to change our life style to conserve energy on a massive scale. No more commuting on the freeways, all new construction should be totally green. Existing structures should be modified to save energy. No more urban sprawl should be allowed and long haul trucking should be stopped in favor of trains.

One little numbers game you might like to play to illustrate things clearly -- at least, i have found it effective -- is the following.
The 7-families of the Oil cartel report on quantity of oil in the ground (reserves). If we look at Arabia, they have had 264B barrels for the past decade plus. Yet, they ship over 3 billion per year. Why doesn't shipping product seem to affect the inventory?

Kudos to Chris, we "our country" is so much in need of people who are willing to buck the negativism against those who are willing to inform us of the truth. Education, on the issue is the only possibility for change in thinking. Without articles and an attitude of shoveling against the tide, like Chris has shown in his articles, our country will continue into this with their heads in the sand.

Jeff

ONE OF THE FIRST ACTIONS BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WHEN IT TOOK OFFICE IN 2001 WAS TO CREATE A TASK FORCE HEADED BY VP CHENEY TO OVERHAUL THE NATION'S ENERGY POLICIES. THE ALGORE DEMOCRATS FOUGHT IT TOOTH AND NAIL BECAUSE BUSH AND CHENEY CONSULTED WITH, OF ALL PEOPLE --- ENERGY EXPERTS!

FIVE YEAR LATER (AUGUST 2005), CONGRESS PASSED A BILL THAT BORE LITTLE RESEMBLANCE TO THE ORIGINAL PROPOSALS.

"WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US"

REGARDS,
JOHN C. SNEDEKER

James Bunger says of oil shales, "This richness of ore strongly suggests economic competitiveness."

I don't understand how, if conventional oil starts depleting rapidly (e.g. 5%+ p.a.), the world economy as a whole will be able to maintain meaningful growth. Without that growth, how will shale extraction be financed? My understanding is that once net oil exports worldwide get close to zero, even developed economies will have to focus energy use on primary needs - food production and distribution and dismantling oil-dependent infrastructure. Shale and tar sands will be immensely valuable strategic resources but they won't be an 'answer' to peak oil in any meaningful sense.

Excellent article. Reagan/Bush etal and Big Oil have known for over 50 years what peak oil was all about. Various governmental agencies have had industry professionals do reports and studies to confirm it and provide solutions....yet they willfully chose to pursue war rather than develop alternative energy (see PNAC). The hard facts are that in the post-carbon era, there are only enough natural resources for about 2 billion souls on the planet, which means that 4.6 billion - Kissinger's "useless eaters" - will be asked to leave. Kinda gives new meaning to Bush's moniker "The Decider".

dear Chris
I' m new reader of your articles. They are very intersting and informative. As being your neighbour across the boader, we also see denial from the politicians, news...ect. Fortunately, people like you are steping up and writting it. Don't miss that second inteview to put your word and challenge your opponent. I would to see that. When people talk about "denial" there is always this image that comes back. The three monkey's : no hear, no see, no talk. This represents some leaders in my and your country. Lots of people I know from both sides of the border is thinking the same thing you are.
Keep up the good work.
Your freindly canadians citizen.

There's probably 400 billion barrels of oil in the Amerasia basin just in front of Alaska and Canada.

Seee www.unoilgas.com

The American government is now, at the dawn of the 21st century, at risk of losing access to the oil of the Middle East at any sort of reasonable prices. The Arctic Commons, and in particular the Amerasia-Canada basin represent a fabulous alternative, secure potential energy supplies for centuries to come.
The Solution to America’s Oil Crisis. The West has compelling strategic reasons to rapidly develop new large sources of petroleum energy supplies from nearby sources, such as are likely to be found in the Amerasia Basin, immediately adjacent to Alaska and Canadian waters. The Arctic Commons region offers the solution to the crippling energy shortages that will begin throttling western economies within the next two decades.

theres all the gas America needs offshore from South Carolina

see; www.strategicnine.com

One of your best articles, Chris. I must say, I like your stance on a number of issues here. Well thought out and stated, and we should all pay heed.

Tell me -- do you and Jeff Siegel ever bump heads?? (Oil company windfall profits tax.)

A second to Tony Bosworth's comment...

Dear Chris-I really was taken by your insights in this piece.

Except for those few who are profiting by the war, it has been a complete disaster in both human and economic terms. Now, when we are at a crossroads, our political leadership offer "tax rebates" which are a complete waste of money, or "tax holidays" which are simply what Sen. Obama labels them: a political bandaid designed to get McCain and Clinton thorugh the election.

Meanwhile, instead of mobilizing our collective brains and moving towards soalar, wind and other fuels for energy consumption, and divorcing oursleves from our gas-guzzlers, we face election-year inertia, as the Washington Post called it this morning, from our so-called leaders.

We can't and won't drill our way out of this, nor will coal shale and tar sands offer much help, given the waste of water and environmental havoc they will cause. What with climate change causing larger and more violent storms, off-shore drilling is becoming more hazardous, and less cost-effective, than ever. Coal-fired power plants aren't the answer-here in the Southwest, we already see the disastrous effects of pollution in terms of rising asthma and cancer rates. Nuclear can help, given it's safety record in recent years. Our energy policy has beend riven, not by practical application and investment, but by greed and political expediency.

Biofuels offer some relief, but limited. We need to conserve fuel, hunker down, and put our brains to work, instead of wringing our hands and expecting the career politicians to solve the problem. It's up to us, not them!

Keep up the good work, God Bless.

Clear. I feel like were all beating a dead horse however.

Your comments on peak oil I have followed for about 18 months and am an avid reader of the emails I receive from Energy & Capital. This article is terrific, and I would like to use in a book I hope to publish in the future about how unprepared we are in the UK when peak oil runs out. We have a government in denial about peak oil. I recently wrote to one minister who denied we would have any problems. Grangemouth is 600 miles from where I live but you couldn't get near gas station for queue for traffic. Although Grangemouth refines 650,000 barrels a day this amounts to world usage of around ten minutes but people here think it will always be available it's sheer lunacy. You are doing a great job and I hope you will continue to issue these warnings. Please confirm it iis OK for me to quote you.

Gerry Evans

You nicely put the truth up against what our pres. is saying. He had only one comment that held water: regarding the SPR.
I truly believe that a bigger problem for our wellbeing is the CO2 glut. That makes ANY reaches for more petroleum a loss. We need to be looking for more ways of creating energy from renewable sources: wind, geothermal,solar, tidal, and wave energy.
I recently visited our shale deposits and even brought back a sample in my pocket.
We need to save these and similar resources for other than fuel: plastics etc. The technical challenge of recovering such material, while intriguing, is far outweighed by the economic challenge of using them sensibly.
I personally am anxious to see what it will take to energize our country with alternative sources, and means of distribution, and how we can make some of this energy portable so we can continue to enjoy our cars, airplanes, and lawnmowers.
The opportunity for investment in the future seems to be without limit when you consider battery technology, transmission systems, wind and wave harvesting systems, and putting all of these in balance with our rate of use of energy. Finnaly we simply must limit our population growth, perhaps the hardest nut to crack. Let us accept the fact that the earth, and perhaps the solar system itself is not a limitless resource for human extravances.

Keep up the good work on your valuable and enlightening newsletter!

Chris,

It is refreshing to read , most, of yr articles but this one especially. It is a source of amazement to me how anyone cannot see the writing on the wall. Maybe they can but have a vested interest in denying it. I reaaly appreciated yr insights but I think you let Bush off a little too lightly. He has been a major obstacle in solving our energy problems (presumably because he is a 'Big Oil' guy at heart).
Anyway, please keep the info coming . Have a great day. regards, George

A great, straight forward, insightful view of the situation. For a glimpse of the horrific future read James Kunstler,s The Long Emergency, or for ideas for getting through an era with little oil read the 1960s classic, Muddling Through to Frugality by Russell Johnston.

I appreciated this article very much for the honesty it seemed to reveal from the author.
Especially about falling back into one of the "stages" of peak oil thinking once in a while.
A dynamic (non-static) never sits in a box!
Thank you

The end of oil - NO! the end of cheap oil - YES! what is cheap oil - $200 a barrel NO more like $300 in 2010. Get with it grow your own food and start reverting to getting around on pre WW2 means of transport. But don't get depressed about it - it will be healthier and happier!

Chris: This is a good summary and, as you point out, one's stage depends on one's education about the subject.

I would like to see more (some) recognition of the future role of unconventionals that thermodynamics tell us WILL happen. The first-law efficiency of oil shale and tar sands is in the mid 80's% whereas petroleum is in the low 90's and falling pretty fast. By my estimates there will be thermodynamic parity between petroleum and these unconventionals in about 8 years, just about the time they would start coming on line if we got started now. The US has more than 400 billion barrels in oil shale that is richer (in terms of gallons per ton) than commercially produced Alberta oil sands. This richness of ore strongly suggests economic competitiveness, if Congress would remove the roadblocks (resource access, fiscal regime, etc). In spite of the naysaying, thermodynamics tell us oil shale will happen, and it needs to happen soon.

I enjoy your newsletter. Regards, Jim