Hello everyone, I just got a close look at Matthew Simmons, Kjell Aleklett and Robert Hirsch with my own eyes!

They were at the Industry Contact Day - Global Oil Reserves - Hopes and Reality, a Peak Oil seminar in Uppsala. http://www.peakoil.net/uhdsg/AIM2005pdf.pdf

They did say some interesting things, for example:

* They all think Peak Oil is a very grave issue, but they also think the doomers are wrong. On a specific question they said Richard Heinberg was very much to pessimistic.

* The Canada and Venezuela tar sands won't save us. One guy presented his master thesis, stating production would max be 11 million barrels a day, not 37 million.

* I asked them what they thought of the Bush administrations awareness of Peak Oil. They said there were very many different voices in Washington and that it was hard for politicians to know who to belive when there are people saying Peak Oil tomorrow while other say Peak Oil in 30 years.

* Robert Hirsch is an extremely sympathetic guy.

* He thinks fuel cells won't be the next big thing. He has more faith in batteries.

* They said it was hard introducing mass transit (such as electric trains and trams) in a large city if the city wasn't planned for it from the beginning.

More things when i remember them...

That's awesome, Starvid! Can't wait to get my hands on some transcripts.

When you say that Richard Heiberg is considered to be pessimistic, what kind of question was it that came up with that response? In terms of his idea of governments positioning for control and possible wars or in terms of when PO will hit? Simmons, as I recall, isn't too optimistic on the timeline, either...

Any more detail on this one?

Do you know when/where slides and/or transcripts will be available?

"Hard" is relative. Underground rail is expensive but cities have done this before (such as Washington DC) after build-out. I don't really see a big problem putting in surface trams, except that it might lower automobile capacity if it takes up right-of-way. The bigger problem is that many cities in the US have been gutted and rebuilt in a non-walkable manner. Ad, of course the suburbs are generally non-walkable. Walkability is required for transit to work effectively. Both in existing cities and for retrofit of suburban areas, there are groups looking at how to make this happen:

http://www.newurbanism.org
http://www.cnu.org/

Doomer issue: They meant Heinberg was to pessimistic on technology and uh, society. They didn't believe that the end of the world was near, but that we would, and I quote, "muddle through". They said we might have a few rough decades but that the world will not end. For example, Aleklett was asked if he belived airborne mass tourism would continue in the future. He answered that sailing boats are very nice.

Slides and transcipts: I have no idea, but everything was filmed and streamed on Alekletts web page peakoil.net , so I figure it will get out on the net soon. If not I'll mail Aleklett since I got his card.

The slides from Hirsch's lecture are, I think, available in his report to the DOE. Google Hirsch +report +peak oil.

Hirsch emphasised several times Peak Oil is not an energy problem but an liquid fuels problem. He also said prudent risk management was needed on the peak oil issue, and stated it was very much better to be to early than to late. According to his DOE study, pretty much all the Peak problems could be avoided if we start crash programs 20 years before the Peak. I think we are running a little late...

Mass transit: Simmons said this was a pretty big problem and took an example from his hometown Houston where they had lots of problems with building a light rail line, and even when it was built it didn't help much. The general idea was that mass transit should be built during the growth phase of the city, and that it was harder when the city had been designed for cars. He didn't elaborate much though.

Also, Hirsch is an extraordinarily handsome man, I wouldn't mind looking like him when I am 50!

And No, I am not gay.

By the way they also answered some questions on biomass. Hirsch had been boss of some government biofuel program a long time ago, and meant not much had happened since then. Even if it had, they meant there is not enough biofuel on the planet to fullfill our demand. Simmons said the corn lobby was blocking switchgrass.

After the seminar I talked a little with Hirsch. I asked what he thought of an electric transportation infrastrucure (nuke plants, trains, trams, electric hybrid cars etc). He thought it would be a huge multi-trillion dollar project that would take a very long time to complete, maybe 20 years, but also that it would be feasible.


More to come when I remember it...

If we are to replace our current oil based transport system with an electric based one, the question is obviously where the extra electricity is going to come from. Of course conservation would probably be our strongest weapon and we could get by with a fraction (half or perhaps even a third) of oil equivalent that we use today without damaging the economy.

But even still, a lot of our electicity still comes from fossil fuels like coal or natural gas, I dont it would be feasible to count on that much of an increase from that sector. I think the current nuclear fission reactor is not an option, I read somewhere that if all developed countries used nuclear power on the scale of what France does today, our uranium would get depleted in less than a decade, I dont know if thats true. Besides there is the issue of proliferation, we certainly dont want countries like Iran or North Korea to go around building nuclear reactors. What about breeder reactors, that supposedly use uranium 100 times more efficiently than normal reactors, would it be feasible to build sufficient number of them?

In the end, I think the most promising options for generating electricity in the future are wind and solar. Did the panel discuss anything about that? What about the Hydrogen economy, did that come up at all?

Interesting. Nice to see some of the big names taking a realistic approach, and distancing themselves from the utopian/collapse nonsense. Thanks for the report, Starvid. Let us know if you kind find a transcript. I'd love to see some direct quotes on the doomer issue.

Simmons calling Heinberg pessimistic reminds me of the tactic the Sierra Club used to use, calling Earth First! extreme. They're extreme, so we're moderates, right? I think these guys get together and decide who gets to be the extremist so the others can play moderate against them. It's for public consumption. They are all really on the same side.

Could we? One out of every six jobs is tied to the automotive industry. So, we are talking cutting 30 to 50% of all jobs in the oil and transportation sector? Remember, all that energy consumption creates jobs for millions of people. Conservation on that scale does not happen in a vacuum, it affects people's livelyhood. That "strong weapon" will be devastating to many. Post energy crisis of the 1970's, independent gas stations disappeared overnight. When I was 16 years old, (1967) there was a gas station on every corner of every main intersection in every town. Gas was $.21/gallon.

I disagree, Berkeley. I think Simmons and Heinberg have real differences. Simmons is a Republican investment banker, and his main focus in peak oil activism is to marginalize the environmentalists and open up more opportunities for drilling, refineries, LNG facilities and other investment opportunities. I would also be very surprised if he is not extremely pro-business, and pro-growth. In fact, somebody needs to ask him those questions straight out at the next public Q&A. Hopefully while Heinberg is sitting in the next chair.

Heinberg, on the other hand, is a dyed-in-the-wool anti-growth powerdown Democrat-style greenie.

Their temporary alliance on "peak oil awareness" is likely to melt away when Heinberg realizes he got played, and that "peak oil" was just a subterfuge to undermine environmentalism.

And that's bad how?

Thanks for the links.

That's a smart observation - and I have wondered why it would not be in the better interests of the Heinberg and Kunstler types (which include me, in fact) just to keep quiet, since their relish in the destruction of the business as usual American way might be disappointed if their warnings got heeded in time. Maybe they need to be pessimistic in order to justify their own roles?

I do sometimes wonder what the real motivations of Matt Simmons are, but I wouldn't ascribe to him the motives that you suggest. I think his peak oil activism is from a genuine concern on his part regarding a possible energy crisis. One has to appreciate the tremendous work that he has done in bringing peak oil to the public attention.

Regarding the marginilizing of environmentalists, I think that is inevitable. Once the crisis hits, the public will demand the government to do what it takes to increase the energy supply. I myself agree with Matt Simmons that we must not let the objections from environmentalists prevent us from doing the things that might help us ride the crisis such as building nuclear reactors, drilling in ANWR etc.

On the other hand I would agree that Matt Simmons does perhaps see the monetary benefits that might come to him after peak oil. After all he calls for oil prices to almost quadruple from their current values. If that happens suddenly it might just kill our economy off, even if it means massive profits for the oil companies and their investment bankers.

What about all the new jobs which will be created for creating public transportation infrastructures?

Where will the money come from to build them? Maids, housekeepers, and travel agents will become construction workers? Who says anything new will get built? We will have trouble enough just keeping what we have running.