[LoneSnark]

wisconsin_cur, I do not at all understand why you think the two quotes are contradictory. In one I doubt whether manual labor is in our future, in the other I suggest the share of GDP going towards labor will increase. So what?

and I'm still waiting for my list of jobs that will become available as oil declines and which one you are willing to sign up for and how you would feel in one of those jobs.

I believe there is a bright future for those going into healthcare, finance, and agricultural science, and are good at it. Of course, good engineers of all stripes are always in short supply (but few engineering graduates actually turn out to be good at it).

Whatever you do, make sure your kids work hard and go to college.

[RdSnt]

They know the MOL very accurately. It's a simple hydraulic issue, there is not mystery there. As well, there are automatic systems in place to close the network down if there is a danger of failure. Those systems work well.

When they say Minimum Operating Level, they do not mean "watch out, it better not get below that or everyone dies!" No, what they mean is "that is the lowest you will ever see it. It cannot drop below that point without draining the pipelines, which not being idiots they will not do."

If a quantity of oil must be left in the pipelines to keep them operating then the pipeline owners, eager not to put themselves out of business, will leave that quantity of oil in the pipeline. They will buy it if they have to (they do have money).

This assumes:

a) someone with the authority actually knows what the MOL is.

b) that the operators are competent

c) that they will act on that competence

d) that oil can be purchased

of course it could just be a moot point. As someone on the outer edges of the pipeline if they stop releasing gasoline from it (to keep it above MOL) the net effect for me is the same. No gas. To those who are not aware it would be a bit of a Pearl Harbor event.

While I have no influence with you lonesnark I would love to have your opinion of The myth of the rational voter. The author deals with politics but I think it applies with a lot of the issues we are discussing here

[RdSnt]

That's an excellent example Pops. Here is Canada we are just now getting a more or less general agreement that spraying chemicals on lawns is a bad thing. It's been a huge fight and that's for something not particularly critical. I find it amazing how hard people will fight for vanity.

I guess I am still on my Rachel Carson kick - more of a bottom up question.

Personally, I think timelines really don't matter in the context of when, not if and are really more a distraction in promoting the idea of get it while the getting's good.

When Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring, folks who had endured hardships were convinced of the motto: Better Living Through Chemistry and fought any infringement on their right to use whatever chemical with a lablel promising to make their life easier. Heck I still hear older folks bemoan the loss of DDT.

Notwithstanding their wishes, changes were been made - maybe sometime too many changes but overall to the good I think.

Perhaps my title was wrong, maybe more along the lines of What Will Spark A PO Groundswell?

[RdSnt]

Pearl Harbour, to a great extent, was that era's 9/11. The government and military at the time knew they would be fighting the Japanese and they could have been better prepared. Those on the ground in Hawaii were not as well informed as they could have been, that was Washington's fault.
Both Pearl Harbour and 9/11 provide a meaningful metaphor for the unfolding events of Peak Oil.
There was tons of information available and many, many people providing warnings of impending disaster. In the end though it was the self-interested political mechinations of those "inside the Beltway" that pushed the respective systems to failure.

The most troubling aspect of Peak Oil is that we have had decades of warnings falling on deaf ears.

Maybe I'm showing my ignorance of pre-1941 history, but was anyone expecting an attack on Pearl Harbor despite all the other serious events taking place at that time? I would suggest that the PO Pearl Harbor will occur in a similar manner. Out of the blue. In other words, no matter how well informed you are, the actual 'event' will still catch most of us off guard.

[wisconsin_cur]

wisconsin_cur, I do not at all understand why you think the two quotes are contradictory. In one I doubt whether manual labor is in our future, in the other I suggest the share of GDP going towards labor will increase. So what?

and I'm still waiting for my list of jobs that will become available as oil declines and which one you are willing to sign up for and how you would feel in one of those jobs.

I believe there is a bright future for those going into healthcare, finance, and agricultural science, and are good at it. Of course, good engineers of all stripes are always in short supply (but few engineering graduates actually turn out to be good at it).

Whatever you do, make sure your kids work hard and go to college.

So lets see if I get you right. You would say,

1. peak oil will eventually occur
2. no one knows when or how bad
3. life will, more or less go on as before,
4. we will still need plenty of engineers to make all kinds of great energy intensive toys
5. Those of us who believe in a past or imminent peak are... overreacting?
6. Those who are afraid of the end of the world as we know it are... hysterical little children?

If my articulation is anywhere near correct, I hope it is not too forward to ask, why are you here? Are you here to save us? Poke fun at the little children?

While I have not read all of your posts, I have read a lot of them. I have not observed any interaction, even awareness of, the pro-peak oil literature. Do you mind sharing what, if any, positive arguments you have read. There are plenty of people you revere (finance and engineers and geologists) who make the argument. You could weigh the arguments of these heavy weights. I would intenently read you interaction with them. Perhaps a big wig banker whose made millions in the real world would convince you. His web site is here. I'd love to hear your critique of his book.

Perhaps we should start a new thread to recommend some reading for you? then you can vanquish the heavy weights and you will save us from our hysteria.

[Pops]

Perhaps we should start a new thread ...

Yea, I’m thinking that is best as I am obviously not able to keep you two on my topic.

[threadbear]

"Every sea captain, and all who travel by ship, the sailors, and all who earn their living from the sea, will stand far off. When they see the smoke of her burning, they will exclaim, 'Was there ever a city like this great city?' They will throw dust on their heads, and with weeping and mourning cry out:
" 'Woe! Woe, O great city,
where all who had ships on the sea
became rich through her wealth!
In one hour she has been brought to ruin!"

There's my annual revelations quote. That dude was on some powerful trip when he wrote it. This thread looked like a good place to insert his timeless view. Enjoy!

Technical question--if they're at sea, where are they getting the dust to throw on their heads, or did people of that day carry dust with them, wherever they went, in the event of just such an occurrence? That would be kind of funny, a ship carrying a barrel of dust, in case people started throwing hysterical fits, maybe they had another wooden barrel to collect the hair people pulled out, too.

[JohnDenver]

Hirsch speaks of decade long mitigation efforts, not 20 years.

Un huh. Why don't you take that up with the long list of PO.com'ers who say otherwise, like pstarr:

Hirsch makes one simple point: 20 years preparation to avoid economic and social catastrophe. All else from you is disassembly I am not interested in debating.

Linky

Dozens more PO.com folks saying the same thing here.

You're out in the cold, Dude. Backpedaling. And disassembling (sic).

[threadbear]

I guess I am still on my Rachel Carson kick - more of a bottom up question.

Personally, I think timelines really don't matter in the context of when, not if and are really more a distraction in promoting the idea of get it while the getting's good.

When Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring, folks who had endured hardships were convinced of the motto: Better Living Through Chemistry and fought any infringement on their right to use whatever chemical with a lablel promising to make their life easier. Heck I still hear older folks bemoan the loss of DDT.

Notwithstanding their wishes, changes were been made - maybe sometime too many changes but overall to the good I think.

Perhaps my title was wrong, maybe more along the lines of What Will Spark A PO Groundswell?

Most of the changes that have been made for the good, involve multinationals outsourcing polluting industries to China, India and third world nations.

What will spark a PO Groundswell is necessity and desire and a crack down on carbon emissions, led by Kyoto. I sure hope it helps in Canada. Our creepy prime minister is trying to dance around the deal we signed several years ago.

[LoneSnark]

If my articulation is anywhere near correct, I hope it is not too forward to ask, why are you here? Are you here to save us? Poke fun at the little children?

Again, you have put words in my mouth I would hope I was never drunk enough to speak.

And i love how you are so certain that it is obviously me that is wrong and if I only read some literature I would see my obvious idiocy, without reason to believe so. All because I don't believe pipelines wreck themselves without cause?

Is that what sold you on Peak Oil? A few 'heavy-weights' similar to the one you linked? Well, I have heavy-weights too: every other economist or analyst on the planet. You are not under the illusion that Peak Oil Doom is recognized and widely accepted idiology in the scholarly literature, do you?

But I do not adhere to populist idiology. I do not care which ideas are most popular, or if they have any defenders; all I care about is enlightened reasoning, and I have yet to be convinced by the Peak Oil camp that the world works the way you say it does.

So, I guess we should stop paying, you refuse to address my points, choosing instead to change the subject, usually to me. That is not how a reasonable discussion should proceed. If you believe MOL will be the Pearl harbor of Peak Oil then counter my criticism, don't question my education.

[TheDude]

Our results are congruent with the fundamentals of the problem:

• Waiting until world oil production peaks before taking crash program action leaves the world with a significant liquid fuel deficit for more than two decades.
• Initiating a mitigation crash program 10 years before world oil peaking helps considerably but still leaves a liquid fuels shortfall roughly a decade after the time that oil would have peaked.
• Initiating a mitigation crash program 20 years before peaking appears to offer the possibility of avoiding a world liquid fuels shortfall for the forecast period.

So we're both right, in a sense. Of course if you believe the peak has come and gone Hirsch says we're screwed anyway, as opposed to being in bad shape or just fine - unless you believe the Club of Rome's conclusions. And I take it you don't.

Well, I have heavy-weights too: every other economist or analyst on the planet. You are not under the illusion that Peak Oil Doom is recognized and widely accepted idiology in the scholarly literature, do you?

Was under the impression that in general economists aren't cognizant of resource limitations of any kind. You'd know better than us about that, though.

Here are some good articles - good commentary as well.

Economic Impact of Peak Oil Part 1: A Flashback

Economic Impact of Peak Oil Part 2: Our Current Situation

Economic Impact of Peak Oil Part 3: What's Ahead?

And also

Questioning peak oil economic assumptions

[TonyPrep]

Significant though that peak was, you probably well know that all liquids production continued to grow and, according to the IEA, may have reached a new high in October 2007 (this year).

Yes, I am aware of that. However, that just goes to show that alternatives like tar sands and NGL can scale up and compensate for peak oil -- something which was said to be impossible by the peak oilers.

You write as though that's the final word. Unconventional and stocks have "scaled up" for the last couple of years, so they can continue to substitute for the decline in crude oil, and raise overall production for ever. Do you honestly think that? If not, then why do you even raise the point? If you do think that, then you must believe that unconventionals are infinite and can be produced at any rate required. If this is the case, can you prove that, or is it simply a belief?

Remember, the peak oiler claim has always been that *oil* is special and cannot be substituted with alternatives. That's why peak oil is so scary. The idea that liquids would smoothly substitute for oil has always been the cornucopian position.

And still is. Some of the unconventionals, as I understand NGLs, are an artifact of declining conventional reservoirs. Others take far more energy to produce than conventional. I don't understand why you think this should not be a concern.

So the POers can switch to liquids to salvage the peak oil theory, but we'll have to label that for what it is: a big fat backpedal, and an admission that the cornucopians were right. Oil isn't so special.

But the unconventionals is oil. If not, what is it?

And it's very likely to happen again. Liquids will peak, and the economy will keep ticking along because people are shifting transportation to the power grid or other alternatives.

So now you're substituting faith for oil.

I have been told ad nauseum that we need 20 years to prepare for peak *oil* because the Hirsch report says so. Well, guess what. We didn't prepare for even one year, and peak oil came and went without causing a disaster, or even a recession. Peak oil mitigated itself with "liquids". So why do we need to prepare?

Because all liquids hasn't started to decline yet. Even the optimistic oil chiefs and IEA chiefs are acknowledging that declines may happen within the next 8 years. That is an enormous switch. I take it that you stick to the position that oil and scalable alternatives will never decline?

Pops honestly seems to think that people need to go back to the farm or can tomatoes or something to prepare for peak oil, but we now know, in retrospect, that that was unnecessary. So why should we prepare for peak liquids?

Surely you aren't serious? The market will solve all, eh?

The POers were demonstrably wrong about peak oil. Why should anyone believe you about peak liquids?

Perhaps because they weren't wrong? Some countries are already suffering because they can't afford the high prices, even in rich countries economic growth is marked down and oil stocks are being raided continuously. I don't know why you think the worst (which was nothing to you) is behind us.

However, the lack of growth in production has caused economic growth to drop. Fatih Birol estimates that the high prices have knocked 3% from African economic growth, in the last few years...

And economic growth forecasts in Europe have just been reduced.

Tony, those effects are basically a joke considering all the dire peak oil scenarios I have been entertained with since joining this forum in 2004.

Then feel free to laugh. You've offered nothing to suggest that others should also find the situation so amusing.

[JohnDenver]

Tony,
I don't want to muck up Pops' thread anymore, so I'll respond to you in a new thread called "Peak Oil: The Big Fizzle".
JD

[LoneSnark]

Was under the impression that in general economists aren't cognizant of resource limitations of any kind.

Economics is about the allocation of scarce resources with alternative uses. As such, without resource limitations there would be no need for economics as there would be no need for prices as everything would be free all the time.

[TheDude]

Back on topic - you could give this a shot, Pops:

Fuel protesters set for weekend of action

Allegra Stratton
Monday December 10, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

The group behind the fuel refinery blockades that gripped the country in 2000 has announced it will stage fresh protests this Saturday.

In a statement released on its website this morning, Transaction 2007 said the rise of the price of petrol to £1 a litre had caused it to take action.

"This date was decided by members as the best possible to ensure those who would normally be working during the week to attend. This action will be initiated at a refinery or storage depot somewhere near you," the statement said.

Article continues
"Anyone wishing to support action is requested to make your way there at the allotted time."

The group of farmers and road hauliers, which has only recently re-formed, said next Saturday's tactics would be a modification of past fuel protests.

"Fuel refinery blockades are a tactic of the past due to the implemented Police Reform Act brought in shortly after 2000 to quell any future uprisings.

"We are not aiming to bring the government to its knees, as we did in 2000; we aim to negotiate directly with those in power unions and associations - peacefully not forcefully - to get our message across."

[Pops]

...

I’m thinking you should take JD’s example and get a thread.

[oowolf]

In the US? Most of the sheeple can't comprehend that their PRIMARY REASON for existing is to make money for Henry Ford, Standard Oil, etc... by turning everything on the planet into piles of increasingly-more-worthless crap while destroying said planet as quickly as possible.

Going green? Conservation? will NEVER happen until enforced by dire necessity, and even then most will blame it on anything other than their stupid, destructive way of "living".

alas..

[Pops]

alas..

See I think the idea of necessity (or the credible threat of necessity) being the spark is a whole lot different than many folks thoughts here that something will need to be imposed from the top.

Certainly not for Paris Hilton but there are many more folks out there with a head on there shoulders than I think lots of PO’ers believe.

Say oowolf for example...

[Pops]

Yes, Pops. It's called "Take care of yourself." And extend that to your family and other loved ones. I don't know why so many people find that so strange.

Yea, Shanny, I guess now that I ran off JD and Snark this thread will fizzle.

Interesting there is more concern about debates, titles and the freedom to fantasize about The Boot than thoughts about how change might occur.

Oh well, good luck finding that wood cook stove .

[threadbear]

Yes, Pops. It's called "Take care of yourself." And extend that to your family and other loved ones. I don't know why so many people find that so strange.

Yea, Shanny, I guess now that I ran off JD and Snark this thread will fizzle.

Interesting there is more concern about debates, titles and the freedom to fantasize about The Boot than thoughts about how change might occur.

Oh well, good luck finding that wood cook stove .

So Pops, if that's the case, why are you participating on this thread?You're doing the same thing.