Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

It's the End of the World as We Know it

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Unread postby BudDwyer » Fri 23 Jul 2004, 07:27:34

"Don't worry son, you might not be gassed. There's a fifty percent chance your walking into a shower." said Mr. Steinburg
User avatar
BudDwyer
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu 22 Jul 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby nigel » Fri 23 Jul 2004, 07:35:51

On the same topic - postponed peak - I also offer this from ex- imminent Peak super-doomster LaHerrere which I have lifted from The Oil & Gas Journal forum dated 10/10/2003 04.58pm.

"The only way to solve the problems of energy for the next 30 years is
to have high energy price.
The problem is that I am not anymore worry about oil supply as the oil
demand will be flat (a bumpy plateau) for the next decade and as oil
company wants to increase their profit they will produce as hell, using
the technology to produce faster but globally less (as for the Atlantic
cod, fishing more when the fish was disappearing). So as people do not
care for the future of their children, it could be oversupply mainly in
deepwater and oil price may fall
My worry is for the natural gas. In my OPEC presentation I showed a
graph with the correlation of gas discovery and gas production for
US+Canada+Mexico and at the time the production was still rising and I
forecasted a soon drastic decline. The graph was done in 2000 for a
French paper and it was translated in English."

This came from a lengthy series of posts debating peak oil by a handfull of 'bigshots'. One has to subscribe to read it but I think, in the circumstances, it's worth paying to see what comes out of the horses mouth rather than its dubiously digested and reinterpreted arse.

The PeakaBoo boys seem to have been forced to agree that peak panic will be delayed. Of course they don't put it as straightforwardly as all that. From what I can read between the lines they have had to accept heavy hydrocarbons exist, that peak decline is not as steep or linear as they say, that their figures for recovery percentages are too restrcitive and a host of other 'adjustment's which make the theory a little thin. Campbell, that notorious date moving doomster, has slipped it back to 2016 (Nat Geog 6/6/04 from 2010). Campbell said 2010 in 7/2003. In 2002 he said peak 2003/4, in 1997 he said peak in 2001. There again he also said the URR was 1.57trbl in 1989 and miraculously this had increased to 1.8trbl by 1997 and 1.95trbl by 2002. Where does that man get his data from? The same place as the USGS it would seem. They put the peak at 2036/40 with a world growth rate of 2.6% back in 2000.

The more relaxed types - Linden and Odell put the peak - including recovery and use of heavy hydrocarbons BUT excluding oil shale - at 2060.On 16/6/2004 BP said "at current production rate" there's no problem until 2045 (excludes HHC's).

The more I read about peak oil the longer I'm going on the cave real estate project. I nearly bought a place in the Ozarks!


Now I find it's not PEAK OIL I should be concerned about but PEAK GAS!
nigel
 

Unread postby nigel » Fri 23 Jul 2004, 10:50:17

While I’m debunking the Doom$eller$ what do you think about Deffeyes’ rigourous academic study, ‘Hubbert’s Peak’? I found it lightweight, superficial, self-contradictory, unconvincing and egotistical. Where are the counter-argument rebuttals? The book is hollow. The middle part is more a life story and a basic geology course, than an academic argument on peak oil.

Consider the numbers:-

P4. “Hubbert’s oil prediction was just barely within the envelope of acceptable scientific methods. It was as much as an inspired guess as it was hard-core science.”

P4 “A Hubbert prediction requires inserting some hard, cold numbers into the calculation.”

P135 “The numerical methods that Hubbert used to make his predictions are not crystal clear.” He concludes that Hubbert made a guess and then searched for data to prove it - hence the critic’s accusation that he fits the data to his curves instead of deriving the curves from the data. The man’s nothing more than a chartist!

Consider the timing contradictions:-

P12. “My own opinion is that the peak …may occur even before 2004….. However, it would take a lot of unexpectedly good news to postpone the peak to 2010.”

P149. “I honestly do not have an opinion as to the exact date for two reasons.. (unkown OPEC reserve figures)”.

P158 “The mathematical peak falls at the year 2004-7; call it 2005…. There is nothing plausible that could post-pone the peak until 2009. Get used to it.”

Consider two factual contradictions within the text:-

P5 “A company taking the 2004-8 hypothesis seriously would be willing to pay top dollar for existing fields. There does not seem to be an orgy of reserve acquisition in progress.” He fails to see this observation – and the facts - challenges his whole argument.

P4. “Typically, young petroleum engineers unconsciously tend to underestimate reserves. It’s a lot more fun to go into the boss’s office next year and announce that there is actually a little more oil than last year’s estimate. Engineers who have to downsize their previous estimates are the first to leave in the next corporate downsizing.” (Doesn’t sound exactly ‘unconscious’ then, does it?). But then we read P4/5 that this tendency does not apply to the OPEC engineers, indeed here he assumes that they take the opposite line: “The warm fuzzy numbers from OPEC probably give an overly optimistic view of future oil production.” He totally contradicts his own assertion!
nigel
 

Unread postby nero » Fri 23 Jul 2004, 12:05:06

Nigel,

I must say that if this is the best you can come up with as factual contradictions I must applaud the author. It sounds like a remarkably carefully written book. I have a hard time seeing the contradictions you find so obvious.
User avatar
nero
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat 22 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

Unread postby nigel » Fri 23 Jul 2004, 12:18:56

nero - The book's so light weight/thin there's not much to get one's teeth in in the first place!

That you cannot see a problem in his argument eg. - that if oil companies took the peak oil theory seriously they would pay top dollar for exisitng fields - and they are NOT doing so - I can't help you further. His own evidence contradicts his assertion!
nigel
 

Unread postby BudDwyer » Fri 23 Jul 2004, 12:54:14

Isn't "peak oil" already happening? Effecting poorer countries first.
User avatar
BudDwyer
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu 22 Jul 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby nero » Fri 23 Jul 2004, 13:01:09

Nigel, I haven't read the book so I'm addressing only what you posted. You didn't say whether or not the author asserts that the oil companies take the hypothesis seriously. You haven't isolated an internal contradiction by the author for me.
User avatar
nero
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat 22 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

Unread postby nigel » Sun 25 Jul 2004, 10:53:37

nero - your thoughtful and enquiring approach is appreciated.

Firstly, I think if you are really intersted in peak oil you really ought to read two contraposed books.. and then make your own mind up. It's critical that you do so rather then ingest other people's excreta. I favour Hubbert's Peak by K S Deffeyes and Why Carbon Fuels Will Dominate the 21st Century's Global Energy Economy by Peter R Odell. The latter book being the most recent, published in 2004.

Secondly, I intended this thread to be about Laherrere's 'volte face'. I threw in my derisory comments about Deffeyes on a buy one get one free basis. Deffeyes is Mr Lightweight. A very nice, my dad was blue collar, I had 100 lunches with Hubbert - lightweight. He admits Hubbert's numbers are a mystery to even him. In my view he's on the bandwaggon and contributes little. In 208 pages he devotes the first 13 and a few at the end to the actual topic. The rest is self-indulgent padding. It is NOT a critical academic study. He does not consider any counter arguments.

The Peak Oilies of note are 1.Hubbert, 2. Campbell 3. LaHerrere. 4. Deffeyes.

The important VERY BASIC elements of Hubbert's theory are as follows.
1. Natural resources are limited.
2. They will run out.
3 Their use and depletion follows a fairly basic bell curve.
4. From this one can predict BOTH how much oil there is and how long oil willl last before it runs out.
5. The important date is not total depletion but the peak of the curve. Why? because at this point prices will skyrocket as demand increases. Some read into this that the world will then end soon after the peak.

The theory supposes one can predict the peak from the exisiting information.

Problems:

The curve, whilst supposedly fitting the '56-'70 USA experience does not do so. The depletion curve is not as predicted. The North Sea Oil experience reveals an even clearer disparity from that depicted by the theory.. It seems that Hubbert - for all his secrecy - was in fact fitting the facts to a curve, not the other way around = a chartist = a charlatan in my book. The theory fails to take into account the economic backdrop. Lower oil prices will lead to less money invested in exploration and vv with concomitant effects to the peak date and URR.

The peakaboo brigade have predicted the peak at repeatedly delayed stages. Campbell not only keeps putting the date of peak back but also he keeps increasing the amount of ultimately recoverable reserves. If the original theory meant anyhting at all then this would not be possible would it?! The peakaboos have, despite the theory's ability to predict the URR, continuously increased it. In other words, the theory has not fitted the facts. Those new to the argument are not aware that peak has been postponed over and over again. Not only that, but the amount of oil available keeps bing increased. This makes the theory a nonesense.

They peakaboos have also claimed to have unique access to the REAL figures and thus a specially reliable data source. THEY KNOW THE TRUTH BEHIND THE FACTS. This is a typical mountebank response to a challenge - you don't know - we do - we have an inside source. This has been debunked as the USGS has used the same data and they completely disagree with the conclusions.

The peakaboos also ignored deep water resources. They have also, in the past, ignored heavy hydrocarbons. They do not include all oil bearing sources - eg. shale and tar sands. - naturally the peak crisis comes earlier than the other experts say as they are excluding more than half of what's available. As technology improves, so the peak is pushed back - while common sense, this completely contradicts the original theory. The peakaboos said that recoverable oil was only 30% of the field - in fact 50% + is now recoverable. So the theory is being regularly debunked and the peakaboos have to postpone the end of the world at regular intervals.

This is - very simplistically - my starting point. Now. along comes LaHerrere, the number 2 guru behind all this, and he says, bold as brass - that the peak will not be a peak but an extended plateaux! This completely contradicts the original theory!! Worse, he now says, given the massive extension to life as we know it, that his concern is not peakoil but peak gas. He sees the peak as being years away. This is pretty devastating to peak-oily die-offs. He has blown the original theory to pieces and is left with - non-renewables run out one day! Hardly news, is it?

So, peak oil is dead. This is what LaHerrere has said. He has shot the whole peak oil theory in the head!

That's not to say oil won't eventually run out - but that Hubbert's predictive theory is bunk.

So, given that even God says God is dead, where does that leave peak oil? In the hands of peak gas!
nigel
 

Unread postby nigel » Mon 26 Jul 2004, 07:50:05

A bit more on Laherrere - the underlying Hubbert principle is that once oil's discovered in a region the larger reserves are found first and early - this sets (they say) the parameters for the whole field and creates a predictive hyperbola from which the whole future field may be predicted.

Sorry chaps, not only a weird assumption but also wrong. Look at the North Sea field production graphs! Also, Gulf of Mexico was predicted to peak on this Hubbert basis in1989 - then in 2003(?) Thunderer was discovered by BP. Whoops - the theory bombed again. Peak is now somewhere around 2011 for this field and GoM is still seen as one of the best deep water prospects.

So the Hubbert theory is a bit dopey.
1.It assumes that in a given region one can predict the amount of oil that's there from early discoveries. (Wrong).
2. That production will always reach a peak then decline. (Wrong)
3. That annual production would always be symmetrical (Wrong).
4. That one can define the percentage recoverable from the resource. (wrong)
5. That technology would speed the decline angle of the production curve. (wrong)
6. That technology for recovery was static ie 30% max out. (wrong)
7. Conservation increases as prices rise which extends the field's life.
9. Alternatives have seriously delayed the oil 'peak'.
10. Many oil substitutes exist - he ignored heavy hydrcarbons, shale, tar sands - of which there is more than all the oil put together.
11.He did not allow for the effects of market economics on the pattern. He assumed that eg the Saudi's would go all out to find and develop all they could. (wrong). See slippery Saudis post.
12. He didn't allow for deep sea oil as the technology wasn't around.

The point is, that he based his theory on the US and made his neat little graph fit. No way does the economic situation either approach or match the Saudi one. Why assume all oil nations will behave like the petrol hungry American one did? At fisrt blush it seems a logical and persuasive argument but after a bit of thought one can see it does not fit commonsense nor the facts. The commonplace - that IN HINDSIGHT one can say there was a peak DOES NOT MEAN one can predict it before hand. The stock markets have people called chartists who say they can tell what's going to happen next from the shape of the past graphs! They talk mumbo jumbo about candles, crosses, heads and shoulder etc.

Fact is, anyone can predict something after its happened.

All one can deduce from the depletion of non-renewables is that they will run out. Predicting when, as the Campbell brigade has discovered, is an altogether different matter. Perhaps he's hoping for fame ex-post facto - one of his dates will be right one day!
nigel
 

Unread postby nero » Mon 26 Jul 2004, 13:09:28

Nigel,

Interesting post. I will look into finding copies of those books. Especially the skeptics one. I think that worthy ideas get stronger when subjected to critical consideration. Unworthy ideas eventually melt away.

I think that Hubbert's U.S. prediction was a bit of inspired engineering judgement not really science. Elevating it into a "theory" is a bit much. One of it's idea I think is common sensical is that the production will decrease slowly just like the production increased. So when anyone says something about having 43 years of reserves left I now secretly roll my eyes. I am convinced that idea that there will be a peak in (conventional)oil production is pretty uncontroversial. It is just a matter of when it will occur and how we will cope. (I am agnostic with respect to a techno-messiah coming along)

I agree with your contempt of stockmarket chartists but that is fundamentally a different situation from forming a prediction of peak oil from historical data. Theoretically, in an efficient stock market any trend identified in the charts should disappear as soon as it is identified. There is no matching argument for using historical oil production data to predict future oil production. That forecasting is emminently sensible, and even could be called "scientific" in that to test a scientific theory you need to create a prediction and then test it. Hubbert's fundamental "observation" (ignoring some specifics like that it should be a bell curve which I don't think hubbert had any basis for) of oil basin depletion eventually occuring is not controversial and has alot of historical data backing it up. So I would call this limited observation as proved and any further use of hubbert's observation as purely a matter prediction for prediction sake.

I find some of Laherrere's(?) hypothesis interesting. The idea that EOR doesn't necessarily improve URR is interesting. And I find some of his graphs of prod vs cum prod. very persuasive evidence for this hypothesis. I would like to know if someone has taking a critical look at that hypothesis. (probably have but I haven't taken a hard search for it yet)

I also find that the hypothesis that the law of diminishing returns (ie
cum resources vs wildcats) can be used to predict ultimate discovery a very interesting theory. I don't know to what level of sophistication this theory has been developed, but I think it could develop into a powerful predictive tool.

I personally find that Campbell's predictions are a bit biased towards the gloomy and don't take them too seriously. I guess I don't trust his engineering judgement of what URR will be. Equally I don't trust the USGS estimates either, I think they look wildly optimistic.(They also extrapolated from US experience to world wrt reserves growth). Surely they could create a better model for future production than that growth will be demand limited until the R/P ratio is 10 and then limited by the depletion rate at constant R/P. This is such a silly model its hard to imagine that they didn't choose it spicifically because it delayed peak production to far into the future.
User avatar
nero
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat 22 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

Unread postby nigel » Mon 26 Jul 2004, 13:50:08

Nero - we seem to have reached the same conclusions about Campbell and the USGS. Doesn't leave us with much does it? It drives one towards Aaron's post under Slippery Saudi's - ie force the buggers to tell us how much oil they've got left - only I can't see that being workable.

The best thing I have done as regards information is to subscribe to the Oil and Gas Journal online. I have a certain amount of faith in the markets and would expect the oil companies to operate in a sensible profit seeking manner. Short of knowing what the Saudi's are investing in this is probably the best way to second guess what's happening out there.

I find the whole situation quite extraordinary. Odell comments that the USA/Russia + OPEC agreed International Energy Forum based in Saudi may resolve these questions. p126. It is supposed to connect 170 countries to get down to the facts. I'll believe that when I see it but what else is there? If not, he sees USA/China conflict ahead. So do I.

I wouldn't class Odell as a sceptic, he's an academic oil specialist who has been writing papers on oil since the 1960's. I think he's a realist on the optimistic side. There's a 2 volume book of his studies packed with info which I am wading through. "Oil & Gas: Crises and controversies 1962-2000" pub Multi Science Publishing company Ltd. I could not get them via amazon and went to the publisher direct and got a 10% discount. Ditto with his other more recent 2004 - book.
nigel
 

Unread postby nero » Mon 26 Jul 2004, 14:32:05

The best thing I have done as regards information is to subscribe to the Oil and Gas Journal online. I have a certain amount of faith in the markets and would expect the oil companies to operate in a sensible profit seeking manner.



I subscribe to Petroleum News for the same reason :)

I worry though that there is little proof that oil discovery is sensitive to price. Historically, discovery is closely associated with the number of new available plays. When technology or politics makes a new area available (like deep water oil) the discovery rate improves. In a mature field with no technological breakthrough I don't think there is much improvement even with better prices.

In my crystal ball, technology will be key to how long (conventional) oil lasts. The tar sands and nat. gas are going to be big that is already in the works, but what is next for conventional oil is the 64,000 dollar question.
User avatar
nero
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat 22 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

The Ends Of The World As We Know Them

Unread postby Grimnir » Mon 03 Jan 2005, 16:34:15

Interesting editorial from Jared Diamond about social collapses throughout history and what they can teach us about the current state of the US. There's little new in it for anyone who's read Diamond before, but it's a good introduction if you haven't.

It was published in the NYT so you need a free registration to read it. Feel free to use wooly / tasty68 (courtesy of http://www.bugmenot.com).

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/01/opinion/01diamond.html?pagewanted=4&incamp=article_popular_3&oref=login

Here are some of the highlights:

New Year's weekend traditionally is a time for us to reflect, and to make resolutions based on our reflections. In this fresh year, with the United States seemingly at the height of its power and at the start of a new presidential term, Americans are increasingly concerned and divided about where we are going. How long can America remain ascendant? Where will we stand 10 years from now, or even next year?

Such questions seem especially appropriate this year. History warns us that when once-powerful societies collapse, they tend to do so quickly and unexpectedly. That shouldn't come as much of a surprise: peak power usually means peak population, peak needs, and hence peak vulnerability. What can be learned from history that could help us avoid joining the ranks of those who declined swiftly? We must expect the answers to be complex, because historical reality is complex: while some societies did indeed collapse spectacularly, others have managed to thrive for thousands of years without major reversal.

When it comes to historical collapses, five groups of interacting factors have been especially important: the damage that people have inflicted on their environment; climate change; enemies; changes in friendly trading partners; and the society's political, economic and social responses to these shifts. That's not to say that all five causes play a role in every case. Instead, think of this as a useful checklist of factors that should be examined, but whose relative importance varies from case to case.

...

But before we let ourselves get depressed, we should also remember that there is another long list of cultures that have managed to prosper for lengthy periods of time. Societies in Japan, Tonga, Tikopia, the New Guinea Highlands and Central and Northwest Europe, for example, have all found ways to sustain themselves. What separates the lost cultures from those that survived? Why did the Maya fail and the shogun succeed?

Half of the answer involves environmental differences: geography deals worse cards to some societies than to others. Many of the societies that collapsed had the misfortune to occupy dry, cold or otherwise fragile environments, while many of the long-term survivors enjoyed more robust and fertile surroundings. But it's not the case that a congenial environment guarantees success: some societies (like the Maya) managed to ruin lush environments, while other societies - like the Incas, the Inuit, Icelanders and desert Australian Aborigines - have managed to carry on in some of the earth's most daunting environments.

The other half of the answer involves differences in a society's responses to problems. Ninth-century New Guinea Highland villagers, 16th-century German landowners, and the Tokugawa shoguns of 17th-century Japan all recognized the deforestation spreading around them and solved the problem, either by developing scientific reforestation (Japan and Germany) or by transplanting tree seedlings (New Guinea). Conversely, the Maya, Mangarevans and Easter Islanders failed to address their forestry problems and so collapsed.

...

What lessons can we draw from history? The most straightforward: take environmental problems seriously. They destroyed societies in the past, and they are even more likely to do so now. If 6,000 Polynesians with stone tools were able to destroy Mangareva Island, consider what six billion people with metal tools and bulldozers are doing today. Moreover, while the Maya collapse affected just a few neighboring societies in Central America, globalization now means that any society's problems have the potential to affect anyone else. Just think how crises in Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq have shaped the United States today.

Other lessons involve failures of group decision-making. There are many reasons why past societies made bad decisions, and thereby failed to solve or even to perceive the problems that would eventually destroy them. One reason involves conflicts of interest, whereby one group within a society (for instance, the pig farmers who caused the worst erosion in medieval Greenland and Iceland) can profit by engaging in practices that damage the rest of society. Another is the pursuit of short-term gains at the expense of long-term survival, as when fishermen overfish the stocks on which their livelihoods ultimately depend.

History also teaches us two deeper lessons about what separates successful societies from those heading toward failure. A society contains a built-in blueprint for failure if the elite insulates itself from the consequences of its actions. That's why Maya kings, Norse Greenlanders and Easter Island chiefs made choices that eventually undermined their societies. They themselves did not begin to feel deprived until they had irreversibly destroyed their landscape.

Could this happen in the United States? It's a thought that often occurs to me here in Los Angeles, when I drive by gated communities, guarded by private security patrols, and filled with people who drink bottled water, depend on private pensions, and send their children to private schools. By doing these things, they lose the motivation to support the police force, the municipal water supply, Social Security and public schools. If conditions deteriorate too much for poorer people, gates will not keep the rioters out. Rioters eventually burned the palaces of Maya kings and tore down the statues of Easter Island chiefs; they have also already threatened wealthy districts in Los Angeles twice in recent decades.

...

In this New Year, we Americans have our own painful reappraisals to face. Historically, we viewed the United States as a land of unlimited plenty, and so we practiced unrestrained consumerism, but that's no longer viable in a world of finite resources. We can't continue to deplete our own resources as well as those of much of the rest of the world.

Historically, oceans protected us from external threats; we stepped back from our isolationism only temporarily during the crises of two world wars. Now, technology and global interconnectedness have robbed us of our protection. In recent years, we have responded to foreign threats largely by seeking short-term military solutions at the last minute.

But how long can we keep this up? Though we are the richest nation on earth, there's simply no way we can afford (or muster the troops) to intervene in the dozens of countries where emerging threats lurk - particularly when each intervention these days can cost more than $100 billion and require more than 100,000 troops.

A genuine reappraisal would require us to recognize that it will be far less expensive and far more effective to address the underlying problems of public health, population and environment that ultimately cause threats to us to emerge in poor countries. In the past, we have regarded foreign aid as either charity or as buying support; now, it's an act of self-interest to preserve our own economy and protect American lives.

Do we have cause for hope? Many of my friends are pessimistic when they contemplate the world's growing population and human demands colliding with shrinking resources. But I draw hope from the knowledge that humanity's biggest problems today are ones entirely of our own making. Asteroids hurtling at us beyond our control don't figure high on our list of imminent dangers. To save ourselves, we don't need new technology: we just need the political will to face up to our problems of population and the environment.

I also draw hope from a unique advantage that we enjoy. Unlike any previous society in history, our global society today is the first with the opportunity to learn from the mistakes of societies remote from us in space and in time. When the Maya and Mangarevans were cutting down their trees, there were no historians or archaeologists, no newspapers or television, to warn them of the consequences of their actions. We, on the other hand, have a detailed chronicle of human successes and failures at our disposal. Will we choose to use it?
Grimnir
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 851
Joined: Mon 04 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: USA

Unread postby Guest » Mon 03 Jan 2005, 16:46:36

Guest
 

Unread postby Grimnir » Mon 03 Jan 2005, 16:49:07

Oh for crying out loud. :oops: There's an awful lot of ambiguity here between the different forums.
Grimnir
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 851
Joined: Mon 04 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: USA

Unread postby mindfarkk » Mon 03 Jan 2005, 18:13:27

must be a darn good article! :lol:
User avatar
mindfarkk
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 441
Joined: Tue 07 Dec 2004, 04:00:00

The End Of The World As We Know It

Unread postby Annatar » Mon 13 Jun 2005, 11:25:02

For anyone living in Australia:

On Tuesday, 6 June 2005 at 8.30 pm (AEST) on SBS is a documentary called 'The End Of The World As We Know It'.

From the link on the website http://www20.sbs.com.au/sbs_front/index.html#

Presenter Marcel Theroux discovers that the real war is not on terror: it is between nature and humans. Left unchecked, global warming could bankrupt the world economy within our children's lifetimes. Marcel travels through Europe, India and Chernobyl to talk to scientists, insurers and even the chairman of the global oil giant Shell, all of whose comments share a terrifying echo: if we are to avoid cataclysmic climate changes, we must massively reduce carbon dioxide emissions immediately. This Channel 4 documentary investigates this compelling issue that is relevant to all who inhabit this planet. In the words of Sir David King, chief scientific advisor to the British government, ‘Global warming is the biggest problem facing us this century... bigger even than the problems of global terrorism'. (From the UK, in English) CC


For those interested in the Federal Government’s proposed industrial relations reforms, a discussion forum will be held on Insight, 7.30 pm, SBS on 6 June 2005. From the link http://news.sbs.com.au/insight/

The government’s proposed industrial relations reforms have been variously hailed and derided as a massive shift in workplace relations, while some have argued there’s not much change at all or that the reforms don’t go far enough. The unions see the changes as a determined attack on workers’ rights, while business groups say it will free employers up to take on more workers and improve efficiency and productivity.
Cheap oil is a RIGHT! Conservation is just letting the terrorists WIN!
User avatar
Annatar
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri 15 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Here, 10^10^28 metres away, and so on.

Unread postby skiwi » Mon 13 Jun 2005, 12:07:57

Might make me watch tv tonight for the first time this year
Luckily it's the 13th not the 6th. Thanks for the heads up 8)
Let us make him who shall nourish and sustain us. What shall we do to be invoked; to be remembered in the earth.
We have tried with our first creatures but we could not make them venerate us.
So let us try to make obedient respectful beings who shall
User avatar
skiwi
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 673
Joined: Mon 23 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Frost Free in New Zealand

Other end-of-the-world scenarios you bought into?

Unread postby Ayoob » Mon 27 Jun 2005, 00:19:25

What nonsense did you believe would end the world before you heard about PO?
User avatar
Ayoob
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 1520
Joined: Thu 15 Jul 2004, 03:00:00

Next

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 67 guests