Econbrowser

Good post:

Checking the track record of their prior predictions.

What a fascinating way to look at the “peak oil” question! Peak oil may not depend on the actual amount of oil in the ground or in whether it's profitable to get it out but on whether it's profitable enough to make it worth the while for the corporte giants who dominate the industry. That's as much a question of psychology and government policy (maybe more so) as it is a question of geology and economics.

Mexico announces a find possibly larger than their biggest existing field. All the peak oil theory in the world and one pesky fact tosses it all out. Again. Exxon/Mobil doesn't increase production because they make more money running their aging refieries near capacity than they would if they produced more at a lower price after investing tens of billions.

ROBERT COTE:
"Mexico announces a find possibly larger than their biggest existing field. All the peak oil theory in the world and one pesky fact tosses it all out. Again."

Really?

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cantarell.htm

Mexico's biggest existing field: Cantarrel
Size: 35B
Production: 2.1 Mbd
Decline Rate: "Cantarell is expected to decline rapidly over the next few years, falling as far as 1 MM b/d by 2008." That's over a 50% decline in 3 years.

Will your "possibly larger" new find be able to ramp up production and replace the Cantarrel decline? In time?

If this new find is, say, 35B barrels, how much would that offset production peak?

World production: 31Bby -- i.e., about 1 Cantarrel (the 2nd largest field on earth) each year.

Get real.

I thought Carl Pope made a good catch, noting some of Exxon's earlier statements:

The company also concedes, quietly, that without massive improvements in energy efficiency, the world is in deep trouble even with its wildly optimistic assumptions for future OPEC oil production. In a speech to the Scottish parliament a year and a half ago, an ExxonMobil spokesman warned that without energy-efficiency improvements, the world in 2030 would face an enormous shortfall of oil production -- 155 million barrels a day. The spokesman provided a fascinating graph showing that, in reality, ExxonMobil's strategy for sustaining the global energy economy is entirely driven by two assumptions: that OPEC can increase its daily production by 50 percent, and that increases in energy efficiency will produce twice as much oil by 2030 as total projected OPEC production.

- more here

There's no discussing this with peak oilers. They not only won't listen, they've been defensive about being so wrong for so long that they can't even keep a civil tongue. We've extracted more oil since 1975 than was known to exist in 1975 and still have as many years left as we had in 1975. Being wrong for three decades has done to them what slot machines do to gambling addicts. They think they are "due."

The peak oliers have been saying that there have been no significant discoveries for many years and just this morning we find out about the discovery of what might be the worlds second largest oil field and the reaction is "yeah, but..." There's just no pleasing them. It is a religion, their gods are Campbell and Hubbert. It's only been a half a day since the worlds supply of oil has been extended by more than the wildest maximum undiscovered oil possible according to the peak oilers and they are already calling everyone who has been absolutely correct since 1855 idiots. It's 2006. The die we toss once a year now has 152 sides and only on pip. Someday the peak oilers will be correct. When that time comes we may have a few as 75 years to move away from oil dependency. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that that day and I'm certainly not going to sell my SUVs and move back into a 4 story cold water walkup tenement high density crime crib rabbit warren when it does. Get real. Better yet, get civil.

Interesting comments Robert. There does seem to be a common theme with the Peak Oil discussion community that things can only get worse. Examples: 1)Enhanced oil recovery methods only steepen the decline 2) Every energy alternative(hydrogen/ethanol/bio-diesel/nuclear/wind/wave/solar/tar sands/oil shale/coal etc. etc.) is doomed to failure because none can singlehandedly replace oil 3) Investment in energy research/resources somehow damages the economy rather than growing it 4) Society is on the brink of collapse anyway and limited oil supplies will somehow push us over the edge! 5) Technology cannot improve EROEI on any alternative regardless of what G.E. or M.I.T. say...Typically on this site there is a more rational audience. Sometimes not. What I find disturbing is the Peak Oilers negativity. Snap out of it! The most successful, highest earners on this planet are optimists. I'll be making a lot of money whether we have a bunch of oil or whether we don't. The only people the Peak Oilers are dooming are themselves.

Mr. Cote, doesn't the peak oil crowd survive by simply finding new young blood? They did frighten me 30 years ago when I was just a lad. Not sure if it was Ronald Reagan or Wharton professors who showed me all the monsters in the closet were make-believe.

The Peak Oil whiners are going to be about as relevant to the global energy discussion in one or two more decades as were steam locomotive engineers once we switched to diesel and diesel-electric hybrid locomotives.

They fail to recognize that the following global conditions and problems eclipse any worthwhile concerns about peak oil:

1. The planet's nations have thus far only consumed one fourth of the known reserves and available sources for oil extraction. There is no pending shortage. We will have more problems pulling together the investment funding necessary to extract and refine oil that we will locating new unexplored sources.

2. The accelerating rate of meltdown at both polar caps pushes forward the impact of rising sea levels, which will require relocation of major population centers and major economic activities along coastlines, creating large economic disruptions. The meltdown impact will be felt before we ever run out of crude oil supply from all available sources.

3. The forthcoming potential downsizing of the U.S. economy and perhaps global economy will scale back the immediate growing need for larger quantities of crude oil derived fuels. Rates of economic growth based on deficit spending at present thresholds in the U.S. are not sustainable. The U.S. economy will undergo major challenges during the next two to fifteen years. Present GDP growth rates will not be sustained based on existing U.S. trade policies, taxation, and corporate offshoring practices. The U.S. economy will shrink, as will industrial and household demand for crude oil feedstocks and fuels.

4. The panic associated with rising sea levels will likely create a ban on consumptive use of crude oil fuels for all light duty vehicles and other deemed "non-essential" uses of crude oil derivatives. The move to accelerate the development and expansion of other fuel sources will occur at an increasing rate, again long before crude oil supplies ever run out. The anti-carbon emission movement will be huge in a few decades. That such initiatives will not impede the meltdown at either polar cap is irrelevant, as crude oil fuels will suffer the same fear and disdain as did DDT and SUVs.

The sky is falling doomsayers of the Peal Oil supposed "reality-based community" will be increasingly ignored while others address the solutions. Their feet are mired in crude oil. They really don't get it. We will move on.

Here is an excellent report regarding future energy needs and sources. One read of these 91 pages, including the appendix charts, provides a noteworthy understanding of our energy situation. No regrets on this read. No emotional outbursts, either.

Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, & Risk Management
Robert Hirsch, Roger Bezdek, and Robert Wendling, MISI
February 2005

Another document of interest is the ExxonMobil 2005-2030 Energy Outlook presentation. This document is filled with excellent charts. While some may dispute the projections presented, there is no question that the ExxonMobil and Hirsh, Bezdek, and Wendling reports are worth reading and discussing.

The Outlook for Energy - A View to 2030
ExxonMobil

Hopefully, these reports will be discussed further by Jim Hamilton and others.

I recommend reading the following testimony presented today to the U.S. Congress.

Rex W. Tillerman
Chairmand and CEO, Exxon Mobil Corporation
Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing
March 14, 2006

Excerpts from written testimony:

"ExxonMobil is the largest non-government company is this industry..."

---

"In fact, seven of the top ten oil and gas companies worldwide today, as measured by liquid production, are state-owned. ExxonMobil is the largest non-government energy company - and we rank number five on the list. No other American company is in the top ten."

"Increasingly, these national oil companies, benefiting from government support and preferential access to resources, are not only producing their own nations' reserves, but also competing against non-government companies like ours for access to other nations' resources."

---

"In fact, today we [ExxonMobil] account for a smaller share of the world's total energy production than Exxon and Mobil together did eight years ago."

"And what percentage of the world's total energy do we now produce? Believe it or not, less than two percent."

"It would take about 55 companies the size of ExxonMobil to meet today's world energy demand."

---

"Last year we spent $185 billion buying crude and products - making us the largest single net buyer of refining feedstock."

"You might find that surprising, given that we are a major oil producer."

"We do not, however, produce nearly enough to sufficiently feed our refineries. We produce about 2.5 million barrels of crude oil a day - about 3.5 million barrels less than we refine."

---

I'm a pessimist by genetics, upbringing and disposition. Nevertheless energy ain't sumptin to worry 'bout. Hybrid ceramic/metals will allow near adiabatic combustion processes. Composites will allow both mass-energy conservation and storage advances. Room or near-room temperature superconduction will quadruple effective electric energy capacity. GM will allow plastic corn to grow in the desert. GM will allow rooftop septicsystms to decant more biodiesel than the average home can consume. Amorphous solar will see at least an order of magnitude reductin in generating costs. It is theoretically possible for crystaline PVs to see 2 orders of improvement. Fullerenes can trim a quick and easy 5% of all translational loses. CO2 injection can extend marginal petro source production by many decades at the same time it sequesters the [incorrect] worst byproducts.

There was a time in the depths of the 70s when I was coming of age before I was kicked out of all those expensive east coast universities and I thought gold was going to run out and oil prices were going to infinity and the US on the short end of a long stick and I thought oil was a defineably finite commodity but I grew up. Peak oilers are those of us that never grew up and/or matured. You'd think that being wrong every single time for the last 151 or more years would count for something but instead it only spurs them on. I am reminded of the prophet walking the sidewalks of the city in worn robes and sandals carrying a sign, old and faded from decades of daly use; "THE END OF THE WORLD IS TOMORROW!"

Snigger except the prophet doesn't go out of his way to bstruct my path.

A lot of the commentary on this thread demonstrates how the phrase "peak oil" roots out the doomers and the cornucopians like the recent rains brought more ants into my house.

I waited in gas lines in the 70s. I didn't think the world was going to end. I think oil production is tight and is likely to remain tight. I think the squeeze is near and I don't see any non-ideological substantial arguments to make me think otherwise. I've got a physics degree and engineering experience.

The late Richard Smalley had a lot of insight into this issue. He was concerned. I'll lend greater credence to his insights, and the analysis I've seen here and at the OilDrum. The information discussed above in this thread (from Robert Cote et. al. I just don't find compelling).

Holy hannah, is this what happens when you put disputational paranoiacs in the same room and lock the door?

All I can say is, read the business press. Did Mexico replace their one large field? Cf http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000086&sid=aIBxl_BqGlFU&refer=latin_america

For the record, I own XOM puts *and* believe the evidence indicates "peak oil" is real and near. You really can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Robert Cote - Global oil discoveries have been falling since 1960. These are graphs of acutal discovery figures:
http://stevegloor.typepad.com/sgloor/2005/12/a_couple_of_gra.html

The peak on the graph is Ghawar at about 120 billion barrels of oil. Cantarell was when it was discovered was 11.5 billion barrels of oil which is only 10% of the largest field ever discovered. Also this new field is:

"This new field is a deep-water find that is 950 meters (3,117 feet) underwater and a further 4,000 meters (13,120 feet) underground. Interestingly, though, the article goes on to say that it might take more time to get at the oil than might be expected:"

This is fully inline with Peak Oil as we are now exploiting the smaller and harder to get reserves that are also sour and heavy. To realise the fantasy of Exxon-Mobil URR figures we would have to find one Ghawar size field every year for 20 years. While there a remote possibility that there is one of this size still to be discovered there is not 2000 billion barrels to be found.

A bit of a tangent but I think it's pretty amazing: UK spot gas prices rose by 300% yesterday to the equivalent of $40 dollars per million btu (U.S prices are about $8).

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1730185,00.html

That'a quite a few $20 dollar bills that some people couldn't be bothered to pick up.
Glad we're not relying on the market to give price signals to avoid future energy scarcity ;)

Isn't the most reliable measure of whether a product is likely to be more scarce in the future the price of its futures?

If the production from all these new big finds was going to dwarf the output of current fields, then wouldn't the suppliers in the know sell short to lock in the high price before the upcoming collapse?

Looking at the history of production in the US shows that the peak oil hypothesis is plausible. The price of oil is higher, but we are producing less than previously.

The question to those that think that 'Peak Oil' is only a cult, how much oil have you sold short? If you're right you could certainly become rich since the market seems to be pricing oil as if it wasn't getting any easier to get out of the ground*.

* I grant that there is a terror premium built into the price now, but if we have already maxed out oil production, or the converse where we are on the cusp of a new golden age of oil because of the incredible new fields just around the corner, then that secular trend will swamp all the other noise in the price.

Pessimism doesn't generally pay because the optimists of the world create change, but the Peak Oilers do have a point when they say you can't trust the oil companies that project growth where no growth has been (see graph above) or the state-run oil companies who say 'Trust me' when asked to disclose data about their fields.

Cote,

You are hacking at straw men, stabbing people who talked in 1975. Get over it.

For a realistic assessment of the oil issue, read the Hirsch report cited by Movie Guy.

Here are some snippets from the report. Note the definition implicit in the first quotation:

“When world oil production peaks, there will still be large reserves remaining.
Peaking means that the rate of world oil production cannot increase; it also
means that production will thereafter decrease with time.”

The questions at hand are:

1. Can production increase to meet rising demand?
2. What will be the economic consequences if it cannot?
3. What kind of technologies do we have to replace oil?
4. Is the time frame for bringing these technologies to the public short enough? Hirsch puts a successful transition at 20-25 years.

All these questions and more, Hirsch addresses.

Consider the following Hirsch quotations. The first echoes Simmons assertion in “Twilight in the Dessert.” The second addresses a growing reality that “peaking,” i.e., production is close to not keeping up with demand, is closer than we think. In short, Hirsch is a “peak oiler.”

“A unique aspect of the world oil peaking problem is that its timing is uncertain, because of inadequate and potentially biased reserves data from elsewhere around the world.”

“Because oil prices have been relatively high for the past decade, oil companies have conducted extensive exploration over that period, but their results have been disappointing. If recent trends hold, there is little reason to expect that exploration success will dramatically improve in the future.”

There is absolutely no doubt that Hirsch is very, very worried.

Movie Guy:

We agree that global warming and environmental destruction pose monstrous problems. We agree also that we must get away from carbon-based energy as quickly as possible to mitigate the coming disaster.

In short, two forces are converging to move us off carbon-based energy: The economics of Peaking and global warming. The question is: Which force hits first? I would posit the following: Most people will feel the economics of peaking before they feel the real effects of global warming. Jim Hamilton is ahead of most economists in terms of peak oil.

While Hirsch remains quiet about the exact timing of peaking, most of the experts he cites put it within a ten-year period. My uninformed opinion sides with the pessimists. In which case, peak oil hits before the real effects of global warming. Maybe peak oil is a blessing in disguise. I think so.

Where economists are not going is to global warming. Give them a few years.

Concerning Exxon's putative dearth of investment, perhaps they are merely exercising intelligence. Would you want to invest your money in Russia, Iraq, Venzuela, Nigeria, or even Saudi? And environmentalist will not allow you to drill in North America.

Furthermore, Exxon was probably burned in 1980 by investments made when oil prices were peaking then. I suspect they are being rational.

That's an interesting point about futures prices. The odd thing is that prices going out as far as 2012 are about the same as today. If there were going to be a huge glut, we'd expect the prices to be going down; if there were a huge shortage, we'd expect the price to be going up.

Granted, there are structural limits in terms of how much the price can go up or down per year, but even so it is odd that there is no clear trend in the futures prices.

Actually as JDH showed a few weeks ago, the markets are quite uncertain about future oil pricesl; the 95% confidence level for Q4 2008 goes from 20 to 180 dollars per barrel! So at this point I don't think the market is ruling out either a shortage or a glut, but neither is either one seen as particularly likely.

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2006/02/oil_at_1530_a_b.html

Just to update on the graph slightly. In their 2004 annual report, Exxon projected growth in liquids production of about 3 1/2% through 2007. However, actual 2005 production was down 2 1/2% from 2004. This despite, one assumes, every price incentive to increase production. Given flat Exxon production for a decade in which global oil supply mostly grew at modest rates, and then a modest but noticeable decline in their production last year when global oil supply was essentially flat, Exxon is fairly steadily losing market share. If Exxon has strong arguments against the hypothesis that peak oil is fairly near, they certainly don't seem to be able to put them into practice.

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/2/15/202152/001

If anyone wants to read and see what ExxonMobil senior representatives actually presented during the recent analyst meeting, here is the link. Slide set included.

ExxonMobil Corporation Analyst Meeting
Wednesday, March 8, 2006 9:00 AM ET

Some of the news reports do not match information provided in the press release or slide set.

Note this standard disclaimer at the bottom of the press release:

"CAUTIONARY STATEMENT: Expectations and business plans in this release are forward-looking statements. Actual future results, including resource recoveries and project plans and schedules, could differ materially due to changes in market conditions affecting the oil and gas industry or long-term oil and gas price levels; political or regulatory developments; reservoir performance; timely completion of development projects; technical or operating factors; and other factors discussed under the heading "Risk Factors in Item 1A of ExxonMobil's most recent Form 10-K and posted on our website (www.exxonmobil.com). References to the "resource base" include quantities of oil and gas that are not yet classified as proved reserves but that we believe will be produced in the future."

Cowboys, Cornucopians, and those Neo-Malthusian Indians

Global Warming vs. Peak Oil - Part I: "The entire planet is out of balance"

There is no question that I position global warming issues above peak oil handwringing on the global action order of priority. We have roughly 80 years of crude oil available. We don't have 80 years to sit around and ponder what to do about global warming. And we don't have 40 years to add to the problem.

We need to act now on global warming. We also need to act on mass scale alternatives for diminishing supplies of crude oil. But don't overlook global warming. We can always ride a bicycle, but not if we destroy the planet.

Please take a moment and look at the following chart. Note the projected growth by global region and major nation.

Global Carbon Emissions, 1990-2100

Global carbon emissions are projected to triple from 1990 levels by year 2100. The implications are clear. This is not a projection based on a sustainable environmental course of action and economic plan. Continued growth in carbon-based fuels usage will only lead to quicker destruction of the polar ice caps and the environment in general. Yet, this is the path that we are on. It's not sustainable. And it has to be changed.

Pollution soaring to crisis levels in Arctic
Guardian Unlimited
12 March 2006

Excerpts:

In the past two decades, carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere have risen from 350ppm to 380ppm and scientists warn that once levels reach 500ppm, there could be irreversible consequences that would tip the planet toward disaster: glacier melts triggering devastating sea-level rises and spreading deserts across Africa and Asia.

Scientists and campaigners are desperate for politicians to reach agreements that will prevent the 500ppm "tipping point" being breached in the next half-century. These new facts suggest they may have a far shorter period of time in which to act.

A Global Warning
60 Minutes, CBS News
16 February 2006

Excerpts:

"The entire planet is out of balance," says Bob Corell, who is among the world's top authorities on climate change. He led 300 scientists from eight nations in the "Arctic Climate Impact Assessment."

Corell believes he has seen the future. "This is a bellwether, a barometer. Some people call it the canary in the mine. The warning that things are coming," he says. "In 10 years here in the arctic, we see what the rest of the planet will see in 25 or 35 years from now."

Over the last few decades, the North Pole has been dramatically reduced in size and Corell says the glaciers there have been receding for the last 50 years.

There's long been a debate about how much of this is earth's naturally changing climate and how much is man's doing. Paul Mayewski, at the University of Maine, says the answer to that question is frozen inside an ice core from Greenland.

Mayewski says we haven't seen a temperature rise to this level going back at least 2,000 years, and arguably several thousand years.

As for carbon dioxide (CO2) levels, Mayewski says, "we haven't seen CO2 levels like this in hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions of years."

What does that tell him?

Even if we stopped using every car, truck, and power plant - stopping all greenhouse gas emissions - Mayewski says the planet would continue to warm anyway. "Would continue to warm for another, about another degree," he says.

That's enough to melt the Arctic - and if greenhouse gases continue to increase, the temperature will rise even more. The ice that's melting already is changing the weather by disrupting ocean currents.

One big supporter of climate science research is the Bush administration, spending $5 billion a year. But Mr. Bush refuses to sign a treaty forcing cuts in greenhouse gases.

"When you look at the American government, which is saying essentially, 'Wait a minute. We need to study this some more. We can't flip our energy use overnight. It would hurt the economy.' When you hear that, what do you think?" Pelley asked.

"Well, what I do then is, I try to tell them exactly what we know scientifically. The science is, I believe, unassailable," says Corell. "I'm not arguing their policy, that's their business, how they deal with policy. But my job is to say, scientifically, shorten that time scale so that if you don't push out the effects of climate change into the long, long distant future. Because even under the best of circumstances, this natural system of a climate will continue to warm the planet for literally hundreds of years, no matter what we do."

Cleaner Air Aids Global Warming
Christian Science Monitor/CBS News
27 December 2005

Excerpts:

New measurements of tiny particles in Earth's atmosphere contain a sobering message: All those hard-won efforts to cut air pollution may unwittingly accelerate global warming.

The result: The planet is likely to warm more and faster than current projections suggest, according to a team of British and American scientists.

The group has produced the most precise estimates yet of how tiny particles, known as aerosols, could affect the world's climate. Aerosols, which include pollutants, have a cooling effect on the atmosphere, and the team's work suggests that the cooling effect is strong - nearly as strong as the top estimates of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Thus, the dwindling presence of aerosols means that global average temperatures could rise faster than previously estimated and reach toward the high end of projections for the end of the century.

Those estimates currently range from 2.7 to 7.9 degrees F., depending on how emissions of greenhouse gases and other factors play out in coming years.

Future Global Energy Prosperity: The Terawatt Challenge
Richard E. Smalley
2 December 2004

There was not a brighter mind than Richard Smalley. He was focused on solutions. Every imaginable solution. And we should follow his example.

---

Cowboys, Cornucopians, and those Neo-Malthusian Indians

Global Warming vs. Peak Oil - Part II: "By 2025, we're going to be back in the Stone Age."

It's time to move on to the solutions, the Next Plan.

Kenneth Deffeyes said, "Crude oil is much too valuable to be burned as a fuel." I agree.

On 11 February 11 2006, Kenneth Deffeyes said, "In the January 2004 Current Events on my website, I predicted that world oil production would peak on Thanksgiving Day, November 24, 2005. In hindsight, that prediction was in error by three weeks. An update using the 2005 data shows that we passed the peak on December 16, 2005."

Ken goes further, saying, "Since we have passed the peak without initiating major corrective measures, we now have to rely primarily on methods that we have already engineered. Long-term research and development projects, no matter how noble their objectives, have to take a back seat while we deal with the short-term problems. Long-term examples in the proposed 2007 US budget (Feb. 9, 2006 New York Times page A-18) include a 65 percent increase in the programs to produce ethanol from corn, a 25.8 percent increase for developing hydrogen fuel cell cars, and a 78.5 percent increase in spending on solar energy research. The Times reports that solar energy today supplies one percent of US electricity; the hope is to double that to 2 percent by the year 2025. By 2025, we're going to be back in the Stone Age."

"Ethanol, fuel cells, and solar cells are not the only shimmering dreams. Methane hydrates, oil shale, and the Yucca Mountain radioactive waste depository would be better off forgotten. There are plenty of solid opportunities. Energy conservation is by far the most important. Initiatives that are already engineered and ready to go are biodiesel from palm oil, coal gasification (for both gaseous and liquid fuels), high-efficiency diesel automobiles, and revamping our food supply. Every little bit helps, but even if wind energy continues its success it will still be a little bit."

"That's it. I can now refer to the world oil peak in the past tense. My career as a prophet is over. I'm now an historian."

Kenneth's 11 March commentary was followed by Robert B. Semple Jr.'s related article in the New York Times on 1 March 2006, available here without the firewall.

The end of oil
by Robert B. Semple Jr.
New York Times
1 Mar 2006

Excerpts:

"When will oil peak? At least one maverick geologist says it already has. Others say 10 years from now. A few actually say never. The latest official projections from the Energy Information Administration put the peak at 2037, or 2047 ? depending, of course, on how much of the stuff is out there and how fast we intend to use it up. But even that relatively late date does not give us much time to adjust to a world without cheap, abundant oil."

"Mr. Deffeyes, for instance, puts the "undiscovered reserves" figure at 100 million barrels, max."

"Despite their differences, neither Mr. Hubbert's disciples nor the optimists showed the least interest in doing a straight-line calculation to figure out when earth will yield its last drop of oil (a calculation easily done, by the way - dividing USGS's 2.3 trillion by today's average annual consumption of 30-plus billion gives us about 80 years until the fat lady sings)."

So, we have an indication of when peak oil has or will occur, and also have an indication of how much more oil can be extracted from the ground, expressed in years of production yield. 80 years. Plus whatever other quantities of oil are extracted from other less efficient production sources, such as oil tars, coal, and any quantity that can be added which results from technologies thus far not made available or invented.

It's time to stop whining or worrying, and focus on potential solutions.

There is where Richard Smalley's thoughts and ideas take over. The following article by Richard is an excellent read. None better.

Future Global Energy Prosperity: The Terawatt Challenge
Richard E. Smalley
2 December 2004

As Richard so eloquently points out, there are many opportunities available to address the problems of peak oil and other major problems that must be addressed in a timely manner by the citizens of Earth. Richard was not afraid of thinking outside of the box. Whatever you do, read the article.

Instead of being defeatist and negative like so many in the Peak Oil doom and gloom club, it is essential that others focus maximum attention on a successive group of alternate energy sources and solutions that improve the opportunities to make timely adjustments as opposed to watching the Earth's human population go back to the Stone Age, as one key Oil Peak proponent said metaphorically. Unfortunately, I believe that he has thrown in most of the towel. On that point, I disagree wholeheartedly.

By all accounts, we're behind the curve on implementing timely solutions and alternatives. It's time to pick up the pace. Robert Hirsh, Rodger Bedzek, and Robert Wendling explain in their February 2005 paper:

"When world oil production peaks, there will still be large reserves remaining. Peaking means that the rate of world oil production cannot increase; it also means that production will thereafter decrease with time."

"The peaking of world oil production presents the U.S. and the world with an unprecedented risk management problem."

"The challenge of oil peaking deserves immediate, serious attention, if risks are to be fully understood and mitigation begun on a timely basis."

"Viable mitigation options exist on both the supply and demand sides, but to have substantial impact, they must be initiated more than a decade in advance of peaking."

"Peaking will result in dramatically higher oil prices, which will cause protracted economic hardship in the United States and the world. However, the problems are not insoluble. Timely, aggressive mitigation initiatives addressing both the supply and the demand sides of the issue will be required."

"Mitigation will require a minimum of a decade of intense, expensive effort, because the scale of liquid fuels mitigation is inherently extremely large."

"While greater end-use efficiency is essential, increased efficiency alone will be neither sufficient nor timely enough to solve the problem. Production of large amounts of substitute liquid fuels will be required. A number of commercial or near-commercial substitute fuel production technologies are currently available for deployment, so the production of vast amounts of substitute liquid fuels is feasible with existing technology."

"Prudent risk management requires the planning and implementation of mitigation well before peaking. Early mitigation will almost certainly be less expensive than
delayed mitigation."

"Since the potential economic impact of peaking is immense and the uncertainties relating to all facets of the problem are large, detailed quantitative studies to address the uncertainties and to explore mitigation strategies are a critical need."

"Intervention by governments will be required, because the economic and social implications of oil peaking would otherwise be chaotic."

"Mitigation initiated earlier than required may turn out to be premature, if peaking is long delayed. If peaking is imminent, failure to initiate timely mitigation
could be extremely damaging."

"In summary, the problem of the peaking of world conventional oil production is unlike any yet faced by modern industrial society. The challenges and uncertainties need to be much better understood. Technologies exist to mitigate the problem. Timely, aggressive risk management will be essential."

Ok. We're there. And we're behind the power curve. It's time to work overtime to address and implement the solutions.

Peak oil is old news. It's not as though we didn't know it was happening. Focus on the solutions and stop screwing around.

Think smarter. Think beyond peak oil.

---

The Bllomberg article on the Mexico find is interesting for 2 things:
i) the exploratory well is 120 miles from the caost- how much of the oil and gas wells damaged by Rita and Katrina are still locked in?
ii) David Shields, an independent energy consultant in Mexico City, says: "Noxal is the third exploratory well Pemex has drilled in deep water, which isn't enough to determine the size of the field," and "The 10 billion barrels would be a substantial amount if there were a basis for it and there's not at this point,'' Shields said. "All of it at this point is highly speculative."
Finally, look at the experts who said less than a year a go there wasn't any problems with the UK North Sea production- what price did natural gas just hit in the UK?

Hope you Yanks can find ways to keep warm with your 4 years of indigenous oil production and 7 of indigenous gas when the Muslims and Canadians close off their exports to keep it for themselves?

Kinda funny that the Air Force actually considers running its planes on coal:

According to Dr. Sega, the Air Force is also looking at alternative sources of energy, from potential conversion of natural gas or coal to jet fuel, to increased use of renewable energy sources.

There are all kinds of things that could be read into that, but it seems at the very least a recognition of a changed game.

Dave-Oz,

Here's the source for your first question:

Hurricane Katrina/Hurricane Rita Evacuation and Production Shut-in Statistics Report as of Wednesday, March 8, 2006

http://www.ocsbbs.com/Hurricane_katrina_evacuation_stats_March_08_2006.htm

Summary of Tuesday news from optimists and pessimists. New large deepwater discovery in Mexico: Optimist- This is great news for the Mexican economy and anyone else who may need to be involved to help bring the resources to market. Pessimist- The Mexicans are liars, they can't technically develop the field, it's bad and sour crude, it's probably not nearly as big as they think, it won't even offset the declines from other fields, only a corrupt few will benefit, and the earth will be punished as a result of this evil substance. Item 2-Afghanistan has 18 times the oil and triple the natural gas reserves than anyone knew. 1.6 billion gallons of oil. 15.7 trillion cubic feet of gas. Optimist- Great that should help provide energy security, improved standards of living, and additional tradable commodities for a country desparately in need. Pessimist- See above Mexican comments. DAVE-OZ, great illustration of what I'm talking about. You slam the Mexicans for being speculative about the potential for their discovery, and then blithely speculate that the US is doomed to suffer after the rest of the world shuts us off. Thanks for your expertise. I'm glad I don't have to count on you.

Rick, my suggestion is that anyone offering you a "precise" description of the future should be viewed with suspicion. This includes doomsday types, who as you say cast around for any reason for doom (confirmation bias). It also includes the superficial optimists, who also cast around for any hope (confirmation bias, revisited).

In a general sense (without false precision) we know that oil supply and demand are tight. We know that new projects will take time to come on line (5-10 years?). We will certainly see, with increasing clarity, what will follow this short term crunch.

Either we will have enough discoveries and inventions to change the game, or this game will continue (and perhaps amplify).

I do think it is telling that no one on the optimist side can stick with one refutation of "peak oil." One day it's discoveries, the next day it is new sources (shale, etc.), and the day after that it is new technology (hydrogen, etc.). Life was much simpler when all it took was discoveries to quell the Club of Rome.

Still they may be right, a (good) "wild card" may come through .. but I don't think a rational observer is going to count their wild cards before they are hatched.

Especially not when all we have to do is watch ...

BTW, speaking of casting about for hope .. these "yellow gas cap" commercials are getting really annoying to me. Does everyone notice that just about every image on the screen is a large SUV, fueled by corn ethanol?

Do the math, man ... large SUVs get ~15 mpg in the real world. E85 gets about 2/3 the mpg of gasoline, and so the solution is 10 mpg E85 SUVs.

Any economists want to take a whack a what corn and ethonol subsidies we need to get the whole country on the road at 10 mpg?

Odograph, I agree with you about caution regarding future predictions. Like most of you guys I like reading about economics and energy, but it hasn't transformed me into Nostradamus. I do take issue with those that think the market will fail to provide solutions to our collective energy needs. It seems a large segment of people support top down government imposed solutions(gas tax, subsidies etc.) to a problem that is clearly hard to quantify as far as its severity. I believe that's a mistake. Right now, today, if I stock my lot with electric vehicles just because I'm projecting oil shortages or high prices, I'll struggle to make a living. If the shortages/super high prices arrive, I'll scramble and find alternative transportation to sell. I will. The mistake is assuming people can't change behavoir quickly. Whenever I read about the inelastic nature of oil consumption I always think that it's because the incentives for change really aren't that significant. When they are, people will change or do without...and fast. The idea that government should provide the solutions so no one will suffer is a fantasy. Life includes pain. When oil becomes too expensive, some will suffer, some entrepreneurs will gain. Let's look for the opportunites to win, not sit around wringing our hands hoping the government will save us.

I have read (and very much recommend) "A Thousand Barrels a Second" by Peter Tertzakian. He makes some interesting points about the size of our installed base (220+ million cars in the US alone), and the supply chains feeding them.

I think it is true that people can change their attitudes fairly quickly, but I'm not sure how fast that can be translated into a new fleet or new fuels. Currently, less than 5% of the US automobile fleet is retired in any given year.

Perhaps my greatist pessimism comes from things like the GM ethanol campaign. The fact that they even do it might be taken as an obvious confirmation of peak oil - but it also shows that there will be interests who need to sell "bad solutions" for their own purposes (in GM's case survival).

And of course the farm states want to be the next OPEC (subsidized, of course).

Another random idea I've heard is that electrics are great, but with home charging you don't need gas stations. Therefore, every actor with an economic interest in preserving fueling stations will oppose electric power. They might perfer anything that they can sell you by the gallon, or the kilogram.

It's a mess, but time will (ultimately) tell.

"If the shortages/super high prices arrive, I'll scramble and find alternative transportation to sell. I will."

While at the micro level this might be true, if it were true at the macro level, GM wouldn't be in such bad shape, now would they?

One thing that worries me, wrt Mexico, is that there seems to be something approaching a critical mass for action on better energy systems around. It hasn't historically taken much short-term good news to disrupt such a consensus.

Regarding how many cars are replaced annually, I think this is a bit of a nonproblem. Surely one of the top - in fact the top determiner of that is the cost and benefit of retaining one's current car? At the moment, buying a new car is a big luxury item. The marginal benefit ain't huge unless the current one is really dire.

And GM's problem isn't that people want too many of their cars.

"The idea that government should provide the solutions so no one will suffer is a fantasy. Life includes pain. When oil becomes too expensive, some will suffer, some entrepreneurs will gain. Let's look for the opportunites to win, not sit around wringing our hands hoping the government will save us."

Run for office, Rick. You'll have my vote and a campaign contribution.

Alex, you could flip it the other way and say that the 5% retirement is supported by the current auto produciton capacity (and half that capacity is SUVs, currently).

That might lead to an interesting situation, if the transition to "dire" is not too smooth.

Rick says: "If the shortages/super high prices arrive, I'll scramble and find alternative transportation to sell. I will."

Or you will go out of business. You have to accept that this may be what the market decides and, your personal qualities and efforts notwithstanding, there is nothing you can do about it.

For today, you have to operate under current conditions. It doesn't make sense to stock up on electric transportation. Though it would have made sense to invest in oil, Toyota and to dump GM. And uranium mining operations by the way. This is not hand wringing. It's trying to guide one's personal decisions based upon global factors. Just as I keep in mind the historical ebb and flow of P/Es which, I'm thinking, are just about ripe for a good ebb.

The world is globalizing, operating at fairly high debt levels (spend today what you hope you earn tomorrow), and may run into REAL energy shocks in the coming years.

I'm not a doomer, but the historically rare occurrence of energy constraints in a globalized indebted industrial economy may lead to economic dislocations that you have trouble imagining.

This is not a request for govt intervention. It's a request for solid analysis of what the implications are, how the economy might respond, etc.

Oh dear, this can't be good. Exxon's out there somewhere making oil and our only hope is to quit using oil. What's a few silly old hurricanes and tornadoes when you're talking lifestyle? Will we drown or run out oil first? Anyone care to hazard a guess?

A couple of responses to Movie Guy's posts above.

First, he quotes estimates that carbon emissions will triple by 2100. These are not credible estimates as they assume no significant technological improvements in 100 years! Similar extrapolations in 1900 had us buried in horse manure by today. It is simply unbelievable to try to extrapolate a technology-intensive business like energy forward for 100 years.

Another point: he quotes Deffeyes as saying we are heading back to the stone age. Deffeyes has repudiated this quote and now says "my fingers got away from me". Let's hope he recovers them. Courtesy of Peak Oil Debunked:

http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2006/03/259-ken-deffeyes-starts-backpedaling.html

One other point: with regard to the CO2 "tipping point", the previously quoted level was 400 ppm. Unfortunately we are already past that if you factor in the contributions from other greenhouse gasses. I guess telling people this does not have the desired political effect, so they have moved the goalposts and now the tipping point is at 500 ppm. Is there any scientific basis for that number? Strange that tipping points are always at multiples of 100. I guess God uses the metric system.

Sorry, I meant to include this link to document the previous tipping point level and the fact that we have passed it:

http://www.countercurrents.org/cc-mccarthy110206.htm

Hal,

I'm glad that you read the posts.

Did you have an opportunity to look at the carbon emission chart? I didn't invent the rate of growth which was based on a study. The results are portrayed in the chart. Sure, it's not a perfect nor exact chart, but the trend lines are obvious.

All one has to do is review what is happening in China right now to appreciate the carbon emission load that is being added to over there...and to the planet. It's remarkable. Sure, their emissions may very well improve later on, but we're watching large carbon emission gains on the planet. China is but one source for the additional gains. Note Eastern Europe. And so on.

Now, if anyone is a certified carbon emission expert, then she/he can explain what happens as regions of the developing industrialize further and do not have to meet the level of emission controls in the U.S. or Western Europe.

There will be a major timeline lag factor that should be factored in to such an emissions analysis.

It really doesn't matter if the carbon emission load only doubles. That's not sustainable. Part of the sources are not manmade, but rather from the oceans and melting permafrost. There are studies underway right now that are focusing on those issues. It's almost as though some emissions have caught them off guard.

I quoted Kenneth Deffeyes accurately, but I also explained that his statement was a metaphor.

Here is what Ken really said: "My fingers got away from me and typed out: "By 2025, we'll be back in the Stone Age." I'm sorry that some readers thought that I actually meant that we would be wearing furs and hunting buffalo with flint spear points. It's called "hyperbole." Nevertheless, I have been looking into acquiring some property on the Arkansas novaculite belt. Great flint."

He didn't back off all the way. He may have taken some heat for his remark, but note how he closes out his thought in the follow up.

Original source: http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/current-events.html

Your last point about 400 ppm vs. 500 ppm is an issue that you may want to take up with the author and/or science editor or publisher of the news article that I not only quoted but provided the URL link. I believe that you should pass along the other news link and ask some questions.

I don't disagree with your point about 400 ppm, as it is apparent that the meltdown rate at the northern polar cap is accelerating faster than they anticipated last year and the previous year. The article is a good read. They are worried.

I a bit surprised at some of comments this morning.

The issue isn't to continue waiting for a definite peak oil answer. That's a waste of time, and Hirsh, Bedzek, and Wendling make that absolutely clear, as did Richard Smalley prior to his death last year. Their thoughts are available for anyone to read in an above post.

Peak oil is old news. The focus right now has to shift to an acceleration of alternative fuels for multiple applications.

If you wisely factor in the growing evidence of advancing global warming, then an urgency to minimum carbon emissions moves to the center of the table. And it stays there. It becomes the overriding issue of concern.

The nation and its citizens have to move the ball. We have to shift greater focus on the solutions, whether known, in development stages, or dreamed up a week from now.

This should be a major issue for the 2008 Presidential election.

Imagine the implications.

Hey Robert Cote, You must be a proffesional blog commenter since I see you all over the place. Just Kidding.

It is a legitimate concern to be worried that the peak is near or past as Deyfess has suggested. There is no reason to set up strawmen on all the peak oilers.

Energy is not technology. Tech uses energy, tech figures out new sources but it is not energy. To a scientist there are only 3 usable sources of energy for us earthlings.

The sun, the earth, and the stars. Just kidding again. Well not really.

The sun - including direct sunlight PVs and ancient sun sources like fossil fuels.

The earth - geothermal activity and the sort.

The stars - I made this up but maybe one can say nuclear energy is really made from the stars.

Have fun, keep it lighthearted and no one is taking away the oil. We are just burning it and reving our motors.

MG - thanks for all the links, I'm just starting to read them. Also for the thought that global warming impacts combined with the inevitable economic recession (crash?) will mitigate or postpone the effects of peak oil. I have the feeling we will be using very high priced petroleum in our crash programs to build nuclear reactors and adjust to or address the warming impacts.

What I don't understand is this "tipping point" concept. It seems to me that the CO2/methane train has already left the station and we have no idea what conditions will be like when the earth reaches steady state. Each additional incremental gas loading just shifts the eventual steady-state condition. Maybe the tipping hypothesis refers to when the earth becomes warm enough to release the methane currently frozen in the tundra in which case Mr Cote will have his work cut out for him.

Fred W,

I agree with you on all points.

We have to move to other fuel sources quickly. We need to get the nuclear program back on line with the latest designs as soon as possible, considering the lead time required. The other major fuels programs will require similar levels of investment and concentration of construction effort.

It's the same story for vehicle transportation and drivetrains. We need to accelerate the non-gasoline program platforms. The skateboard platform design appears to hold great promise. That's the one that I believe will represent the next generation of light duty vehicles.

The CO2/methane train really has left the station. We don't know to how bring it back. At best, we're just trying to slow it down. But it's too late based on what I have read. We will lose the ice at the northern polar cap, including Greenland. So, we are going to have rising sea levels. But we're trying to determine how to slow the rate of meltdown. Not much success should be anticipated on that front. I would say that the 300 scientists who have continued to study and monitor the developments at the northern polar cap are a bit shocked at the meltdown acceleration. It's not looking good.

Similarly, the expectation appears to be that the Gulf Stream will stop keeping Europe warm. We should also experience more severe hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico and along the East Coast.

Granted, some of this is speculation, but not very much of it. The ice meltdown is really happening. Carbon emissions will rise, whether from manmade or natural sources.

We need to be mature and alert enough to do whatever we can to minimize our future problems. We don't have to become rabid environmental dogs, but we're past the point of quibbling over when peak oil hits or whether global warming will have any impacts. There is no point in staying back at those crossroads and arguing. It's time to focus our collective attention on the next steps in the decision cycle. Then act. And keep taking positive actions as quickly as we can.

One of our major problem will be a lack of leadership.

The technocrats are fine for tier two and tier three support staff, but they're not going to be the effective leaders. They can't think effectively outside of their disciplines.

Projects like this require recruitment of people who can create the teambuilding bridges between the scientists, support groups, general capitalists, and government politicians. Those will be the real leaders.

We're experiencing a shortage of generalists who have the skills necessary to fill those valued positions. And that's going to a major problem.

I have been through this drill a few times on major national projects. If it were my call, I would be pulling together a class of leadership recruits in the general age group of 35 to 44 years old. That group would have enough fire and determination plus the staying power to walk us through one or two phases of the U.S. and global efforts. I am talking about leaders who have the ability to stay sharp while willing to work 72 to 96 hour stretches as required. I've seen it and done it. It will require our best and brightest leaders to move these projects forward.

There is a major U.S. Government/corporate program underway at this time that I am not at liberty to discuss in detail, but recent developments support my position that we are suffering from corporate and government leadership shortages. Last week, an outstanding and well focused leader in his late 50s was brought in reorganize the massive program effort. The previous younger leader in his 40s, a bright fellow with excellent credentials, couldn't control his alpha technocrats who are at the highest pay grades and expertise in government and the corporate community, nor could he get the overall agency program missions pulled together quickly enough. He's now the deputy (at least temporarily), and the new alpha leader is wasting no time in building and reorganizing the team. Plenty of senior government and corporate people are in a state of shock, but they get over it or get kicked out the door quickly. This is no time for ego stroking or chest beating.

If we didn't have a leadership experience shortage in the younger age groups, we wouldn't have to do things like this to salvage major national initiatives. I made the recommendation to those involved a few weeks ago to cut their losses and bring in a heavy and get it cleaned up fast or risk losing the program which is significantly over budget in the billions. I didn't want to make that recommendation, as I am team builder, but enough was enough.

We have obstacles to overcome in our junior leadership ranks that did not exist previously. It's a mentality problem compounded by systems specialization. And it's a clock killer when you have to launch a major effort. We have to go to the corporate and government campuses and build some more teams of leaders who know how to lean into the wind. They have to be able to shoot on the run, meaning that have to be able to make outstanding decisions quickly without becoming bogged down in paperwork, regulations, and all the other distractions.

If we pull together and develop core leaders who can lean into the wind, stay focused on the milestones, and know how to pull, not push, their teams to accomplish their collective and pressing goals, we will succeed. Otherwise, we can anticipate a delay of one decade or more as we build the action plans to address these national and global problems. We can't afford a ten year delay compounded by wasted funds, but I expect unfortunately that we will see those problems early on.

I can only hope that we still know what leaning into the wind really means. It's impressive when you build a program around that type of leadership. And it works very well. I wish them great success.

Not DOE! Not the hydrogen economy! Please tell me it's some other hotshot agency working on this. But I guess they're all we've got. They did crank out some good weapon systems, reactors, etc. at one time so I guess it has to be them. I think they have some very good folks in the labs but I’m not sure the politicized, consultant-heavy, DOE HQ can provide adult supervision.

We still have a massive education effort in front of us. The world did get behind the effort to address ozone depletion which is very encouraging. And part of the world is already trying to reduce CO2 emissions. Except it will take a lot more - like fertilizing the ocean, planting stratospheric aerosols, or maybe building space elevators conveying power from sun shield/solar panels in geosynchronous orbit. Oops, time for my medicine.

Okay, you guys have convinced me. There is indeed a massive shortage of a material necessary to keep society from tipping over into uncontrollable chaos; lithium to manufacture enough antidepressants to keep the doom and gloomers from grabbingb the nearest sane person and jumping off a glacier. 7500 of the last 10,000 years were warmer than any of the warmest years of the last century. Anyone who suggests radically altering human behavior has an agenda that has nothing to do with global climate change.

I commented way up above about the US Air Force considering coal as a source for jet fuel. That seemed to be the kind of thing that could only happen if (a) peak oil was real, or (b) peak oil fear was spinning off pork barrel projects.

I considered it a sign of a changed game, but not a cincher. It is interesting now to see that the CEO of commercial carrier Jet Blue is also talking about making jet fuel from coal (link)

My first reaction is that two people with this crazy idea to fly on coal is enough to cinch it (as if GM doing ethanol commercials was not) ... peak oil is real.

The Air Force has research projects for intertia dampening. Does that mean we are running out of gravity? Sheeesh.

Well Robert, this is a market system ... and while win-win is absolutely possible, sometimes it helps to have a sucker born every minute.

GM is waiting for you, with a brand new E85 Avalanche, give them a call.

Robert Cote is a wealth of fallacious anecdotes and analogies, debating strawmen in his head. Conversation with him seems pointless. I suggest not doing so.

Robert,

If you haven't seen the behaviors that have been altered since you were sitting in gas lines during the mid 70s, then you just missed it.

Just look at the drugs that the educational system and medical community stuck our kids on to maintain "control". I can name a number of college campuses where Riddlin and steroids are the drugs of choice. It's easy to spot the Riddies in classrooms because they're not keen on taking notes. Friends who are professors and deans talk about this frequently. Of course, the Riddies are among the first to seek full up retraining after working in industry for a year or two because they forget what they learned. I have a friend running such a retraining program and he is seeing familiar Riddlin faces every six months. He predicted this industry outcome years ago.

The behavioral transitions that have occurred since the time you were sitting in gas lines during the mid 70s are noted by many in various industries. Accepting full responsibility and moving forward quickly is the key to remaining competitive. We have glimpses of that here and there, but it's not a trained art as it once was. A few excellent natural leaders, but nothing on the scale of what we once had.

Hell, look at FEMA and certain other elements of DHS. That's hardly the model that we will need to build on. What a adolescent joke. It's the land of puppies struggling with regulatory overcompliance instead of leading and employing common sense.

Note this mess: http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/news/state/060311wardens.shtml

Your focus on looking for agendas is a wasted exercise. I have no doubt that you may not be part of the solution, but it's unlikely that you will slow the national effort. It's already underway, but it's just too slow. They will pick up the pace when more factually based reports are submitted by the scientists. It's not going to be a problem based on the latest satellite intelligence.

A number of key corporations are already involved and seeking additional support. Even President Bush has received enough briefings recently that he has changed his tune. I have been impressed with his recent remarks. He knows what is happening.

A friend of the family, a well known Harvard graduate, had the audacity to tell my brother and others recently that the only thing that mattered in America was making money. It didn't matter if we lost all of our hard skills, R&D, plants and so on. Well, all hell broke loose as my brother is an academy grad who has been in industry for a long time. Smart guy to say the least. He just ripped into his arrogant argument. And he should have, as that elitist attitude is part of what is taking down our country. It's just one example of the typical elitist "knowledge" being "ordained from above" on younger leaders in business, industry, and government.

This is the kind of junk that some of us are dealing with at various levels. It gets old.

As to the global warming issue and the peak oil analysis, the picture is clear to those who have good foresight. We will move on to alternate fuels and do the best we can. It's not an insurmountable undertaking, but industry and government will have to ramp up to make it happen. We're behind schedule, but we can make up some of the time. I have confidence that we get on track.

I knock the Peak Oil groupies because many of them are stuck on knowing exactly when crude oil hits peak, as if that changes anything. Hell, the recognition of the potential crude oil problem coupled with the verifiable meltdown at the northern polar cap changes the perspective. It's time to move forward and switch out the fuel sources that we can. The lollygagging is over. Emissions are driving the train, not peak oil.

Even the stragglers will get with the program once they find ways to optimize their financial rewards for participation.

Robert Cote is a wealth of fallacious anecdotes and analogies, debating strawmen in his head. Conversation with him seems pointless. I suggest not doing so.

I suggest that anyone who is reduced to attacking the person and not the propositions has already done so.

Movie Guy - I just did a line count on my computer. You have posted 776 of 1528 lines of commentary on this thread, or just over half. Do you think your opinions count more than everyone else's added up? If not, you might want to moderate your posting volume.

On another note, I'd like to direct attention to a comment I added belatedly to an earlier thread, on an article describing reasons why oil producers are not taking advantage of high forward futures prices for hedging. It is presently the last comment at:

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2006/02/oil_at_1530_a_b.html

Peak oil is nothing more than a fabrication created by the oil speculators media machine. It is used to spook the herd when necessary.

The "theory" of peak oil is exactly that, a theory which cannot be empirically proved.

The evidence against peak oil far outweighs the theory.

This evidence ranges from OPEC to oil companies to experts in the field denouncing that oil is in short supply or a finite resource.

Anyone believing in peak oil, might as well also believe in little green men, the loch-ness monster, bigfoot and the boogey-man. Because you are being played bigtime.

If you want the truth and can handle it, follow the speculators and how they profit.

When all else fails, its all about the money and always follow the money to find the truth.

There is enough at this link to dispell even the hardest core "peak oil" advocate.

http://naybob.blogspot.com/2004/07/peak-oil-redux-series.html

Nobody EVER discusses the real problem - the single cause of all of our well documented woes. It's OVERPOPULATION. If we were 2 billion people instead of the 6+ billion now living - there would be no energy or pollution problems. And as an added bonus - most of the country vs country spats would be history; there would be plenty of land for each of us.

Seems funny that every person who speaks out against the very real problem of population maldistribution seems universally unwilling to lead by example.

Peak oil is fatally flawed. Not just that the evidence unfailingly since 1855 has proven them wrong but the theory itself is fatally constructed. The flaw is in thinking gross production is neither fungible nor economically driven. The "Peakinese" (you heard it here first) assume the Oil INdustrial Cabal (oinkers in their minds) are out there scouring the ends of the earth hellbent on pumping every last bit of dinosaur detrius as soon as possible. then they compound by assuming this flat out unconstrained effort has no price based feedback mechanism.

Wow, you guys are pumped up today! M1Ek mentions Macro level and you guys go off. We've got global warming out of control, way too little or way too much oil depending on the writer, irresponsible youth, and overpopulation to boot. No wonder things like Peak Oil theory cause so much despair.

It's overwhelming to try and get your arms around a worldwide solution. If a group of farmers in Iowa decide to produce, use, and sell a little ethanol, it may be a great solution for them...and I bet the EROEI works out fine. It may not be the best solution for a metro area thousands of miles away like a plug in hybrid might. Long haul truckers may find a niche for bio-diesel.

Not every potential societal challenge requires a macro solution. It's not as much fun as commenting on macro problems, but using your energy and passion to affect the micro sure is more likely to be successful. What are you going to do about overpopulation Mike? Answer: Nothing. World history indicates that living standards generally improve. I think more is better, even if we don't have enough oil.

Hal,

I am glad you have taken the time to do a line count.

Rest assured that I will not have my opinions or external material links and excerpts silenced by individuals who are not moderators of this blog.

By the way, you have never answered the question that I asked you.

I am confident that you and all others have every opportunity on a 24 hour basis to post your commentary on Jim's fine blog. There is no waiting line, nor any Gestapo Polizei.

There is, of course, the question of Bushstapo, as explained by Roger Fredinburg.

On July 7, 2002 Roger said, "For the first time in my life as a public figure, I am afraid to write or say those things most pressing on my mind."

Well, aside from the possibility of being sent to GITMO involuntarily, I will state my views freely unless Jim advises otherwise.

Good luck in your future posting efforts.

odograph,

I noted with interest that you made the following statements:

"Do the math, man ... large SUVs get ~15 mpg in the real world. E85 gets about 2/3 the mpg of gasoline, and so the solution is 10 mpg E85 SUVs. Any economists want to take a whack a what corn and ethonol subsidies we need to get the whole country on the road at 10 mpg?"

"GM is waiting for you, with a brand new E85 Avalanche, give them a call."

It's apparent that you are not a fan of Ethanol/Gasoline fuel blends (E85). I have some concerns with the programs also, but not for the reasons that you have stated.

Let me help clarify that MPG figure that you were quoting. There are only 3 vehicles using E85 engines which deliver city mileage at 10 mpg or less based on federal data available at AFDC. Those vehicles are the (1) Dodge Durango, (2) Dodge Ram Pickup, and (3) Nissan Titan.

All nine automobiles (cars) available with E85 engines provide city and highway mileage better than 10 mpg. The two light duty vans provide city and highway mileage above 10 mpg. The other four light duty SUVs also exceed city mileage of 10 mpg, but only by 1 mpg; highway mileage is better. The other four light duty pickup truck models with E85 engines from Ford and GM exceed 10 mpg city and highway.

The next generation of GM full-size SUVs, available for purchase now, are using AFM, so it's possible that the E85 versions of that 5.3 liter engine will provide better highway fuel economy than the models cited below.

The brand new E85 Avalanche that you mentioned comes in at 11 mpg city and 14 mpg highway.

I am interesting in learning whether the Toyota Prius will ever be offered with an E85 hybrid drivetrain.

Here is the Alternate Fuels Data Center fuel mileage information on the entire Ethanol/Gasoline E85 vehicle line up.

Flexible Fuel E85 Ethanol/Gasoline Vehicles

* includes three natural gas vehicles (only ones listed at AFDC)
** includes one dual fuel natural gas vehicle (listed at AFDC)

Cars
Chrysler Sebring - 2.7 liter - 15/20
Dodge Stratus - 2.7 liter - 15/20
Ford Taurus - 3.0 liter - 15/20 vs 20/27
Ford Taurus Wagon - 3.0 liter - 14/19
Ford Crown Victoria - 4.6 liter - 12/18
Honda Civic GX - 1.7 liter - Natural Gas - 30/34 vs 29/38
Mercury Lincoln Town Car - 4.6 liter - 12/18
Mercury Grand Marquis - 4.6 liter - 12/18
Chevrolet Impala - 3.5 liter - 16/23
Chevrolet Monte Carlo - 3.5 liter - 16/24
Mercedez-Benz - 2.6 liter C240 - ? (2005 model)
Mercedez-Benz - 3.2 liter - C320 - ? (2005 model)

Vans
Dodge Caravan/Grand Caravan - 3.3 liter - 13/17 vs 19/26

SUVs
Dodge Durango - 4.7 liter - 9/11 vs 16/25
Chevrolet Tahoe - 5.3 liter - 11/15 (* the older model w/o AFM)
Chevrolet Suburban - 5.3 liter - 11/14 (* the older model w/o AFM)
GMC Yukon - 5.3 liter - 11/15 (* the older model w/o AFM)
GMC Yukon XL - 5.3 liter - 11/14 (* the older model w/o AFM)

Pickups
Dodge Ram Pickup - 4.7 liter - 9/11 vs 16/25
Chevrolet Silverado - 5.3 liter - 12/16
Chevrolet Silverado - 6.0 liter - Natural Gas - 9/12
Chevrolet Silverado - 6.0 liter - Bi-Fuel Natural Gas - 9/12
Chevrolet Avalanche - 5.3 liter - 11/14
Ford F-150 - 5.4 liter - - 16/20
GMC Sierra - 5.3 liter - 12/16
GMC Sierra - 6.0 liter - Natural Gas - 9/12
Nissan Titan - 5.6 liter - 10/14 vs 14/19

* I offered comparative mileage figures for those AFDC vehicle listings where I noted that gasoline MPG was identified. The other data is available, though.

Source: Alternate Fuels Data Center

"Robert Cote is a wealth of fallacious anecdotes and analogies, debating strawmen in his head. Conversation with him seems pointless. I suggest not doing so."

Now that's not nice!

Robert Cote and I don't always see eye to eye, but I've learned a lot from him. Sometimes he can be damned funny. I did appreciate this line:

"Seems funny that every person who speaks out against the very real problem of population maldistribution seems universally unwilling to lead by example."

Thanks John. We've been knocking heads since Nov '03 over some of these issues haven't we? As I said then, my humor has about a 50% detection rate. Maybe we are running out of gravity.

"The brand new E85 Avalanche that you mentioned comes in at 11 mpg city and 14 mpg highway."

That's basically where I'm starting, and applying a rough adjustment ... assuming the classic "miss" by the EPA, assuming typical city/highway mix, and etc.

I'm also trolling for someone to speak up who actually has a big SUV, runs it on E85, and calculates his mileage.

There are fleet customers who can provide estimates of mileage info.

I believe you're focused on the wrong vehicle in some respects. There may be more E85 pickups and cars than SUVs. Fleet purchases might bear this point out. I expect so, considering the period involved from the introduction of the E85 engines to present day.

The real benefit of an Ethanol/Gasoline engine isn't the notion that one would roll over and stay with the blend, suffering the complete loss of miles per gallon over extended usage. The better approach would be to use gasoline in city/local usage travel, and flip over to E85 for some of the long trips. Then it might pay off financially. The owners and operators can jump back and forth. Similarly, the can bump up the percentage of gasoline per tank and that should boost mileage.

Think about how fleets and private owners would use the cars vs the pickups. If you hauling tonnage in the pickups, then stay with gasoline. If not, jump to Ethanol/Gasoline to save money.

The simple advantage of all E85 vehicles over gasoline vehicles is the potential to completely switch over to Ethanol/Gasoline blends during periods of major price jumps or regular gas delivery shortages. Yes, the regular gasoline engines can burn E85 fuels for a very limited period without causing major engine damage, but limited is the operative word.

I don't see a downside of owning an E85 engine equipped vehicle. It makes good sense.

The new GM SUVs with AFM pushes the mileage up over 20 mpg on the highway according to friends who are driving them now. Flip off the AC, and remove the roof rack and you can pick up another 1-2 mpg. I've done it. The 5300 V8 engine is an efficient small powerplant. I am already getting 21-22 mpg on the highway with my 5300 engine and I don't have AFM. Moreover, speed range under 90 mph doesn't affect my mileage very much at all. GM's computer and powerband design work exceptionally well in this regard. I've talked to a few GM engineers to get a better understanding of how well the system works. Finally, I stopped worrying about my speed. And the highway mileage has held up very well. I don't have any doubt that the 5300 AFM engines will deliver improved highway mileage.

I think you need to step back and look at why GM does the commercials. It is because gas prices are up, SUV sales are down, and customers don't (didn't) believe they had an answer.

So, by selling the image of these Avalanches (and yes, the certainly populate the TV ads for the yellow gas cap campaign), they propose a future.

Do the math, big SUVs, E86, and go ahead, use a slightly more generous mpg than I have done:

The United States consumes almost 9 million barrels of gasoline daily. At the same time, current ethanol production levels work out to an average of 255,000 barrels per day.

How much to you need to expand ethanol production to get the TV audience on E85?

(if you sell them Avalanches you need to work a lot harder than you would if you sold them small Brazilian-styled flex-fuel cars.)

BTW, I live in southern California, where everybody drives through tough traffic, essentially getting EPA "city" mileage or worse. Once a year they take a road trip, and total up their "highway" mileage.

The smart ones quote their typical daily mileage ...

Odo,
You get lousy mileage because you are using "california gas." This is just like real gas except it has 10% less energy. I'll post the details and science on my blog later today.

I get 50 mpg, city driving. YMMV.

The "you" in my post was the generic you as in "you get worse gas mileage in California in part because of the lousy gas."

http://exurbannation.blogspot.com/2006/03/california-gasoline.html

Well, Professor, anytime things get dull on Econobrowser, a PeakOil piece gets the pot boiling again. Also, I think MovieGuy should be prohibited from using Cut & Paste. At least for 30 days.

I wouldn't dream of banning Movie Guy-- he's come up with an incredible number of useful observations, insights and links.

However, Rich has a point that maybe there's something to be said for just providing a link with a one-paragraph summary to any one source. What do you think about such a policy, Movie Guy and other readers/commenters?

Also, let me remind everyone to please always try to address the substantive ideas being expressed without attacking the person who voices them.

I don't believe that Dr. Jim Hamilton needs an external big brother or DHS type trying to tell him how to run his life or his affairs, including HIS blog.

Jim,

I posted the excerpts of the text from those key sources to make the point that peak oil is not, in my judgement, the number one issue. Yes, I was attempting to show the other side of the picture. And, yes, I was pushing it. But I usually try to limit that level of effort to one thread per subject.

Normally, unless there is a technical support discussion ongoing involving automobiles, I am not overly keen on pasting too much of the quoted text at Econbrowser. Sure, anyone can go back and say that I have violated that statement 4,000 times, but I will only push quoted text to make a point.

Certainly, I will try to reduce many elements of posts to paragraph summaries plus the link, but there may be a string of links and supporting paragraphs. Or not.

I will abide by whatever you decide, but I will ignore all the blog robocops. I am sick of that mentality in this society.

Any of these guys can send you or me an email. It's just not that hard. But they will need to send you emails to try to silence my presentations or thoughts. I'm not playing the little "I only want a soundbite game". That is one of the things that has dumbed down our society since the mid 80s. And it is dangerous to our future well being.

Movie guys pasting probably is a bit excessive for me but I've learned how to use the page-up/page-down feature on my computer. Others should try it. Just look around on your keyboard.

Regarding the idea of keeping to the point and not attacking the person: true. But I think that should be generalized:not attacking a class of people. Because it is equivalent. For example, if person A makes argument X which is a common argument in support of general theory Y, and then person B says that all people who believe in theory Y are idiots, it's pretty clear that it's just a way to say that person X is an idiot.

I always find it easier, when that occurs, to either (a) ignore the person or (b) point out clearly the implications of what they are saying or, if push comes to shove, just tell them (c) they are an idiot and the conversation is over.

Or something like that.

The point is, these peak oil debates get totally completely boring very quickly when it's all about you cornucopians are "this" and you doomers are "that."

Staying on topic means bringing concrete data and references if possible or a brief summary of their opinions based on reading of data.

There is a considerable difference between verbally attacking an individual poster and attacking or criticizing the values and presentations of a class of people (your words) or a political ideology, economic ideology, or political party.

If we're going to have politically correct blog robocops attempting to smother the voices of dissent against other ideologies and groups which represent them, then we're headed for another type of central government in the United States of America.

Democracy is not easy. We have to fight for it. On the blogs. At the PTA meetings. In the libraries. And at Capitol Hill.

I reject your politically correct notion. It's not going to happen with me. If I want to bitch about the economic policies of the Republican leadership, the weakness of the Democrat minority, or the handwringing of the Peak Oil groups, I will most certainly do it.

This is still the United States of America, not Communist China or Russia.

Hybrid Plus E85

Odo,

I believe that you attacking E85 fuel concepts and fueled vehicles for the wrong reasons. Your heart is in the right place, but your logic doesn't make any sense to me. We're talking about two different national objectives and technologies being incorporated into vehicle platform/drivetrain designs.

If GM and other manufacturers offer E85 equipped engines in some of their forthcoming hybrid models, including full two-mode hybrids, then the owner has the multiple advantages of (1) hybrid technologies and fuel savings, and (2) substitute fuel for the gasoline engine. That's a three way win. GM"s full two mode vehicles begin arriving next year or early thereafter, and will include AFM and VVT plus any other improvements. Add to those considerations the option of the same gasoline engine having E85 capability. That's an excellent combination of performance and environmental options.

E85 fuels development does not have as a focus the issue of fuel efficiency. The E85 fuels program focus, instead, is on (1) reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and (2) renewable domestic sources of energy. Ethanol usage reduces hydrocarbon, benzene, and carbon dioxide emissions, though one has to factor in and subtract lost mpg performance.

You appear to be knocking the idea of buying an E85 capable engine vehicle simply based on fuel economy consideration. The cost difference of optioning for an E85 engine in the same vehicle platform is negligible. What the heck, take it if it is offered, and be prepared to jump to the alternate E85 fuels if all other gasoline blends are unavailable or too costly in comparison. E85 capability is the equivalent of having a full size spare tire in a vehicle. Where is the negative in that idea? No one is making you mount the spare tire and run it. It's just there for pennies on the dollar.

Yes, you're right that E85 fuels do not offer equal or better fuel economy. Ethanol is less efficient, even though it has an octane of approximately 105. But ethanol is biodegradable and will not contaminate ground water.

If GM and other manufacturers offer E85 equipped engines in some of their forthcoming hybrid models, including full two-mode hybrids, then the owner has the multiple advantages of (1) hybrid technologies and fuel savings, and (2) substitute fuel for the gasoline engine. That's a three way win.

Now, there are some other advantages as outlined below. The bottom line is that key drivetrain components are beefed up (improved) to battle corrosiveness. Again, I see no negative in moving in that direction.

Most questions can be answered here:

National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition - Frequently Asked Questions

As an illustration, I will focus on one issue:

"What are the differences in an FFV [E85 engine] compared to a regular gasoline-only model? Are different parts used?"

Response:

"There is only one major additional part that is included on an FFV - the fuel sensor that detects the ethanol/gasoline ratio. A number of other parts on the FFV's fuel delivery system are modified so that they are ethanol compatible. The fuel tank, fuel lines, fuel injectors, computer system, anti-siphon device and dashboard gauges have been modified slightly. Alcohols are corrosive. Therefore, any part that comes in contact with the fuel has been upgraded to be tolerant to alcohol. Normally, these parts include a stainless steel fuel tank and Teflon-lined fuel hoses."

Gasoline/Electric Hybrid plus E85 should be a winning combination until something better is developed. And that may be the skateboard vehicle platform.

A brief answer to the partisan and ad-hominem comments unleashed here at peak oil "whiners" like me.

I am not advocating any particular policy. I haven't said a word about the Iraq war, the environment, or gas taxes. Except to criticize the idea of gas taxes everytime someone brings it up.

I am simply recognizing that, whether peak oil happens five or fifty years from now, it will be accompanied by some non-zero risk of political instability and economic recession. One way to personally hedge against it is to expand one's skill set so that one could remain useful even in a collapsed economy. Another way is to preserve and spread the knowledge needed to restart the industrial tool-chain after a collapse.

I also think it's a good idea to actively pursue a vaccine against the avian flu. But look, they've been talking about avian flu for several years now, and it still hasn't happened! Am I an avian flu whiner now also?

Is it really so difficult to grasp the idea of preparing for contingencies ahead of time?

DoD Global Warming and Fuel Efficiencies Initiatives

Odo,

You showed some interest and surprise (in my judgment) in the USAF initiatives to seek alternate source for their JP-8 jet fuel program.

Aside from global supply and cost considerations related to crude oil, DoD has a goal (1) achieving as much energy independence as possible and (2) maximizing fuel efficiencies across the board. The coal substitution program supports goal 1 and further addresses the single consideration that is wounding some of the major airlines at the present time - fuel costs. They are wise to seek alternate sources for JP-8 production and commercial jet fuels (commercial blend is not Jp-8).

Anyway, here are some good links to copy and save if you so desire. This is primer info, but it's a good introduction to DoD alternative fuels, and energy savings initiatives. DoD is one of the prime national leaders in adopting both energy initiatives.

Defense Environmental Network & Information eXhange

DoD and Global Climate Change

DoD Global Climate Change Links

DoD Alternate Fuels and Alternate Fueled Vehicles
Summary Report to Congress - FY 2002

DoD Initiatives on Climate Change and Fuel Efficiencies under SecDEF Cohen

Petroleum Fuels: Basic Composition and Properties, August 2005

Fuel Cell Developments

JP-8, The Single Fuel

Diesels Tank Engines (includes more general fuels usage info and smart reader comments)

JP8 Fuel Engines (Light Aviation / Military)

MovieGuy,
You don't understand military objectives, direction and/or priorities. The military seeks operational efficiency and effectiveness not energy efficiency and not energy independence. I'm not sure how to explain further given your worldview. The war colleges spend unknowable hours evaluating worst case, worse than worst case contingencies. The USAF spent years on nuclear aircraft and wierder ideas. Good for them. Money well spent.

There isn't some secret report somewhere in the Pentagon or White House laying out an end to energy supplies. Move on.

I agree with you, Texas Al. We need to move on and get with the program. Our future depends on developing alternate fuel source energy programs with a sense of urgency.

Now, I'm the guy who popped off the Peak Oil whiners remark early on, but I qualified my whiner remark around the very concept of what you have said. Let's move forward. We need not sit on the porch and wait for it to rain.

We can sit around and watch the oil rigs all day, and keep an eye of what the oil majors are doing in terms of new or additional exploration and retrieval. But that doesn't solve our emissions problems. Any reluctance to act more agressively on alternate energy sources does not help our future well being as a nation, or planet of tribes of people.

I love the V8 engine and have built many of them. Some very efficient, but they're still fossil fueled engines. The gasoline engine is DOA. We will continue to use the powerplant for a while, but it is part of our past, moreso than our future.

The fourth generation gasoline engines from GM are very good, certainly ahead of all other mainstream manufacturers including the 4 valve configurations which are poor performers on the low end of the powerband. But the next generations, gen 5 and gen 6, will still be burning fossil fuels. The emission problems will likely persist, although I have been impressed with dynamometer results on some prototypes. Very low emissions, which is good.

I will miss the V8 and V6 engines for their great performance and, more recently, marked power to weight performance capabilities, but they're still generally DOA because they are thus far tied to the wrong primary fuel source (if crude oil is the base).

I hope we are smart enough to get after this global warming mess quickly. Very quickly, indeed.

Robert Cote,

You have me laughing at your "know all" attitude about my background. What a joke.

You have no idea what I know. None. I am a fourth generation U.S. military officer who is very familiar with DoD goals and objectives considering that I wrote some of them along with joint forces interoperability, including energy requirements and milestones for implementation.

I suppose that you read all of those links quickly that I provided to Odo. And supposedly understood the purpose of my information sharing with Odo.

You can always send me an email instead of telling me and others what my military and commercial background are, since you have no clue.

Robert, you wouldn't know what secret Pentagon plans exist with regard to fuel sources, or you wouldn't make such a statement or supposed "know all" disclosure. Those who really know about those types of reports on any given classified subject would never discuss any aspect of their existence in a public forum to to those who do not have that level of security clearance or need to know as identified in writing.

I simply provided Odo with basic DoD sourced information available in the public sector of Internet communications. Nothing more.

You need not ever tell me again that I do not understand military objectives, direction and/or priorities. I know the difference between sharing what must or should be kept close to the vest in accordance with U.S. Code, and what can be shared in the public domain.

If you want to continue to act like you know everything about DoD operations and plans, do charge on. I will enjoy the laugh.

Robert Cote,
You have me laughing at your "know all" attitude about my background. What a joke.

The joke is on you. I have no idea what you imagine you know nor would I bother with such nonsense. I made no comments thus and so the one thing I do know is the limits to your abilty to tell the truth. Fourth generation military officers should very well be versed in the integration of cavalry and infantry but very little is applicable to supply chains that have no consideration for oats and hay. I apologize for forcing you to expose the difference between the truth and what you are willing or allowed or do actually post. I have an advantage it that arena. Wow, if I lie or tell the truth you are prevented from agreeing or disagreeing. Glad to see you contribute, it obviously adds so much.

Movie Guy, I think you are assuming parts of my position that I am not stating. I'm fine with ethanol in the abstract. I am fine with governments funding research into ethanol. I am fine with an ethanol market developing, naturally. I am less trustful of a subsidy-driven market, in which governments fund not just research but offset (perturb) the costs of production.

I specifically scoff at GM's yellow gas cap campaign because I consider it "green washing" in the worst sense. They reinforce not a rational view of a natural ethanol market, but rely on a value network built up around unrealistic expectations (that there will be an ethanol to fuel the large trucks and SUVs that populate their television ads).

To disprove that, to prove GM rational, I think you have to show how you will get enough ethanol to fund their E85/SUV worldview. 50% of new car sales are still SUVs? How much ethanol do you need to feed them? What would be the subsidy cost for that ethanol given current structures?

On jet fuel, I think it is interesting that coal-based fuels indicate the following concerns:

- there is not sufficient domestic oil production to power the military even on a "war footing" (rationing, etc.)

- there is not sufficient oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to power the military even on a "war footing" (rationing, etc.)

... as an outside guess, I think the military might sense that congress will use the SPR to offset consumer prices, and thus it cannot be counted on for "strategic" risks in the military sense.

Movie Guy: You're perception and/or interpretation of my point is very extreme. For example, I say that if someone makes the comment that "peak oilers are fools and idiots," it is not useful, and has attributes similar to ad hominem comments, little different than those who say "economists are idiots." When I say this is not useful, you mention robocops and thought police and the likes. Not the point of my post at all.

When we're told that those who give might give a litlte credence to the concept of peak oil are a cult or a religion, the dialog is already going downhill.

I say this as one who has made such remarks in the past. I've guilty of it. But I'm also honest enough to know and admit what I'm doing. And that pointing this out in a public forum has nothing to do with thought control or thought police.

Hope we could skip the carping. Personally, I find MG's extended posts substantive and his links very useful. (Unlike most of the rest of us just stating opinions.)

Anyway, it would useful to follow-up on Texas Al's suggestion that we should be preparing for contingencies ahead of time. It doesn't seem that Congress or the Admin are going to address these huge issues and the American people, face it, are more interested in gay marriage, Barry Bonds, and who wins the Academy awards. I see no significant change in policies until it's too late. So do we learn to trap squirrels or what?

Cote - your continued behavior and immaturity is unnecessary. You know that, fella. Back off. I am retired from the military and civilian government service; now corporate. I will say anything within reason that doesn't violate the law or my honorable obligations to fulfill prior contracts with my nation.

You have my email address. Send a phone number if you want to talk. Your personal assertions are childish. Abide by Jim Hamilton's request for communications between posters or go play elsewhere. You don't want to mess with me.

Elliot - I stand by what I said. No apologies.

I seldom step way over the line in general criticisms of group, ideologies, and organizations. But I will not abide by the repeated attempts from multiple directions to eliminate blog voices - it's a common observation on other blogs.

Jim asks for basic civility toward other posters. I support that goal and only respond if personally attacked or discredited based on phony assertions.

Any suggestion of acting out politically correct roles on blogs is one step toward not being able to express opinions in public. I saw that in Finland during the 80s. Never again. We already have too much robocop mentality flowing down to our children. And on the blogs.

FredW - Thanks. And Texas Al is on the money in my judgment.

Not looking for apologies. I'm not even sure what that means. You do seem very defensive though. I wasn't even referring to you when I made my point. Yet you apparently have decided it was directed towards you. My comment also had nothing to do with political correctness.

But we are way off in the weeds. Unfortunately, this particular thread, as often happens in peak oil discussions, degrades into noise.

Elliot,

I have no personal beef with you.

odo,

Your points are well taken in my opinion.

DoD, of course, is the largest energy consumer in the USA. There shouldn't much surprise that the U.S. Air Force, with its ex