How "Mainstram" can you get???

crossthread · **Joined:** Sun Jun 20, 2004 12:00 am **Posts:** 180

I think It's "official"...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7997882/
Front page MSNBC.com
:twisted:

OilsNotWell · **Joined:** Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:00 am **Posts:** 1262

Official, no.

The attention is good, but they inserted this graphic:

into the damn thing! This is at best misleading. They didn't put Hubbert's curve it, nor ASPO's, not PFC's, nor ODAC info, not CSIS, not even EXXON's predicted peak/depletion curve. They put in the most wild and irrational production assumption out there. Even the USGS doesn't seem to believe it anymore.

That graph they selected assumes that Saudi Arabia can produce OVER 20 MILLION BARRELS/day....sheer impossibility from anyone with a cursory knowledge of their reserves. Even the Saudi's don't claim this.

Those who just glance through it, see the graph, without reading the text will be apt to dismiss it. The insertion of the particular graph, instead of comparing the discovery and production curves, was an editorial decision of propaganda that had little to do with the facts.

seldom_seen · **Joined:** Tue Apr 12, 2005 12:00 am **Posts:** 2322

Holy Sh*t! That is quite a graph.

Based on the "expected peak" we will have more than doubled world production only 30 some years from now. Oh yeah, we'll be consuming roughly 160 million barrels a day come the 2030's.

Free hummers for everyone! All we need is another Earth.

EddieB · **Posted:** Sun May 29, 2005 7:23 pm

Holy crap! If that graph won't assuage investors' worries I don't know what will. That is totally out of this world. If it weren't for global warming, carcinogens, pollution, and all the other negative side-effects of oil dependent society I'd totally wish it were real. Propaganda is the correct name for such a graph, especially since they claim "95% probablity" without any mention of all the reputable detractors who LOL at figures like that one. Arrgh. Even after the peak has come and gone we'll still be hearing how "silly" it is from people like Lynch who just plain refuse to face reality.

crossthread · **Joined:** Sun Jun 20, 2004 12:00 am **Posts:** 180

E~Mail campaign to MSNBC?
:twisted:

OilsNotWell · **Joined:** Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:00 am **Posts:** 1262

I'm going to post and link a few informational tidbits..but the best response would probably be to have Colin Campbell refute them...

These dates are predicted upon the URR, or Ultimate Recoverable Reserves, or ultimate reserves...IEA, relied upon USGS data that had no basis in reality...purely fanciful...

EnergyBulletin - On Ultimate Reserves

APSONewsletter016

EIALongTermOilEstimate(2000)

TableofForecastsofWorldOilSupply

Quote:

The Age of Oil
The total current reported reserves of these five Middle East countries is 696 billion bbl, and production to date is 255 billion bbl (including Neutral Zone and war loss in Kuwait).

But if the 696 billion bbl represents total discovered reserves as the foregoing argument suggests, it means that the real reserves are only 441 billion bbl.

OGJ estimates world reserves for 2004 at 1,278 billion bbl. If we remove the Middle East anomaly discussed above and the 170 billion bbl that were added in respect to Canadian oil sands in 2003, we arrive at a new, more realistic world total of 853 billion bbl.

Some 65 published estimates of the ultimate recovery of conventional oil—many by major oil companies and legitimate government institutions—give an average of 1,930 billion bbl.

The world has so far produced 944 billion bbl, and realistic reserves on the above basis stand at 853 billion bbl, meaning that there are 133 billion bbl yet-to-find if we accept the ultimate estimate.

New discoveries, especially of critical giant fields, have been falling for 40 years, as confirmed by ExxonMobil Corp. being down to less than 10 billion in reserves last year. It suggests that this calculation is not altogether unreasonable.

It sounds as if the world has used about 49% of its endowment of conventional oil, meaning that it is now close to the midpoint of depletion, which normally corresponds with peak production. Peak itself is not a particular significant event but the relentless downward slope that follows it most certainly is.

We can say, in other words, that the world has reached the end of the First Half of the Age of Oil, which lasted 150 years since the first wells were drilled in Pennsylvania and on the shores of the Caspian Sea.

ASPOApr2005

savethehumans · **Joined:** Wed Oct 20, 2004 12:00 am **Posts:** 1541

I didn't know MSNBC was into sci-fi! :roll:

Tell 'em about peak oil, and run 'don't worry, be happy' propaganda IN THE SAME STORY! You gotta hand it to the mainstream media (and their Masters)--they run a good scam! :evil:

Meanwhile, in the real world, oil is peaking. Do they REALLY believe that it won't, or there won't be consequences, just because they say so? Delusion 101!

linlithgowoil · **Posted:** Mon May 30, 2005 4:24 am

that graphic is unbelievable! it states we'll be pumping almost 170million barrels a day in about 30 odd years? but then it looks like even a couple of years later, production will be dropping like a stone to almost zero.

i wonder what the ultimate production would be with that graph? 4 trillion barrels compared to the accepted 2.1 trillion?

i dont get why they put that graph in and not others as well though. usually a good piece would have both sides of an argument, and so they should have had the ASPO graph in too.

it does defeat the purpose of having the article though - again, its like telling people 'in 40 years, you'll die of a heart attack if you dont change your life!' - the person would think... hmmm... 40 years? i might get hit by a bus tomorrow! and do nothing.

AirlinePilot · **Posted:** Mon May 30, 2005 1:09 pm

Showing a graphic like that is even worse than I originally thought. Folks BELIEVE the stuff they read and see on the internet. I would submit that there are a very few of us (current company included) who dig deeper for the facts on both sides on our own. There are too many who will wave this obviuosly ridiculous graphic in our noses whenever the subject of peak oil comes up.

The other thing that comes to mind is how many people even read the whole article rather than just skimming the facts and pictures/graphs such as this? I submit it's a very small percentage and with misinformation like this it just cements the fact that we are headed for big trouble when it starts becoming a day to day problem for John Q Public.

nero · **Posted:** Mon May 30, 2005 1:21 pm

I don't have the links at my finger tips but even the EIA authors of those particular predictions don't think much of them. I remember seeing another article by one of the authors who took the profile that peaks in 2037 and then modified the assumption that at the peak production will transition immediately from 2% growth to 10% decline to a more orderly transition where it takes several years to transition from 2% growth to 10% decline. When he made this more realistic assumption the peak production date changed from 2037 to 2030!

Tyler_JC · **Posted:** Mon May 30, 2005 1:42 pm

I LOVE THIS QUOTE DIRECTLY FROM THE CHART:

Quote:

...escalating oil prices might open oil fields that previously could not have been mined profitably

So will I still be able to fill up my SUV at 2 bucks a gallon with oil from fields that are currently too expensive to mine profitably? How much higher must prices go? $60 a barrel? $160???

pea-jay · **Posted:** Mon May 30, 2005 4:20 pm

From my contacts within the energy industry they most certainly do not think highly of the EIA forecasts. Their only goal is to assuage Congress. The last time they produced pessimistic forecasts (1995) they got their budget cut.

ubercrap · **Joined:** Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:00 am **Posts:** 363

Tyler_JC wrote:

I LOVE THIS QUOTE DIRECTLY FROM THE CHART:

Quote:

...escalating oil prices might open oil fields that previously could not have been mined profitably

So will I still be able to fill up my SUV at 2 bucks a gallon with oil from fields that are currently too expensive to mine profitably? How much higher must prices go? $60 a barrel? $160???

Ah, the old "expensive oil making oil cheap again" trick, I'll have to get the magician to explain that one to me after the show... :-D

lexicon · **Joined:** Tue Mar 08, 2005 1:00 am **Posts:** 86

I thought it was great last summer when National Geographic did a story on it, and I thought the recent AP article, which was reported on CNN Headline News yesterday (albeit in an extremely abridged 30 second version that did not refer to Deffeyes by name, only profession) was certainly a first for cable news. But it's nowhere near enough to make Peak Oil the household phrase it needs to be to wake people up to the reality that faces them.

I'm compiling a list of things that needs to happen on MSM (Mainstream Media) for Peak Oil to gain this kind of profile:

1. Peak Oil on the cover of Time. They need to take this as seriously as they took the environment in the 90's.

2. Front page of NY Times. They need to do a multi-day series like Canada's Globe and Mail just did to wake America up.

3. 60 Minutes should do an expose like they did to the cigarette industry on The Insider. Tie Peak Oil in with the travesty of oil companies cooking the books to hide the truth about the nearness of the approach of the peak of world oil production.

4. The cable networks (CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc.) need to make this a permanent part of the public discourse. Do Hannity or Colmes even have an opinion beyond the party line of silence? Why can't Lou Dobbs make this issue a permanent feature of his show like he does with outsourcing? Surely Olbermann has the balls to take this on if he had the knowledge.

5. The networks need to feature Peak Oil experts on their Sunday morning political shows. Can you imagine Matthew Simmons spilling the beans on Saudi Arabia on Face the Nation? Well, I can dream anyway.

Anything else?

How "Mainstram" can you get???

Who is online