[oli]

The Spec-man! Still talkin in third party talk! The spec-meister is speakin!!
Speccin out with the Specster! Allright!!!

Specman's gonna die the way he lived.

[richardmmm]

I agree

and you pretty much know that peak oil is a load of BS, when an intelligent discussion and an interesting article are greeted with such drivel and little interest.

it suits the government just fine to have high oil prices, all those extra tax dollars just pouring into the coffers from the oil companies.

there is a lot of reverse logic going on here.

people seem to think that peak oil is some kind of conspiracy that is being hidden from the general public..........

........ that is BS.

Fox News are even discussing peak oil.

So anyone who has any genuine interest in contrarian thinking has to be smelling a large rat right about now.

It's not about fanatical opinions, or even being right, it's about being aware, that the idea of PO is as much a sales pitch than anything else, and is not everything that it is presented to be.

[VinceG]

Richard:

I do not fully agree. In the past couple of months we have seen oil prices rising steadily towards the current price of 70-dollar a barrel. The main stream media have begun to pick up the story. However, when you listen to the explanations given by the MSM for the high prices you mostly hear arguments like 'the unstable situation in the middle east', 'oil platforms in the gulf producing less oil because of the hurricanes' or 'disconcern about the productivity for the future'...

However, none seem to mention yet that we might have peaked and from this day on, we will NEVER see a great abundance of oil at cheap prices again...

[Specop_007]

The Spec-man! Still talkin in third party talk! The spec-meister is speakin!!
Speccin out with the Specster! Allright!!!

Specman's gonna die the way he lived.

You mean, Spec is gonna die hopped up on drugs??
SWEET!! Bring on the hookers and blow, Spec's gotta date with the Devil.

[o2ny]

I agree

and you pretty much know that peak oil is a load of BS, when an intelligent discussion and an interesting article are greeted with such drivel and little interest.

I agree- can anyone actually refute this article that appears to have legitimate points about production increases or are we just gonna play smiley face bingo all day.

[hanrahan]

To consider if the article has merit we must find this report, "Our new, field-by-field analysis of production capacity, led by my colleagues Peter Jackson and Robert Esser," and indeed check the credentials of said Gentlemen.

If it's the one I've heard of, it merely quotes other BS reports.

H

[tokyo_to_motueka]

CERA's Mr. Yergin is always spouting on about copious new projects coming on line SOON and how we wil be awash in the gooey black stuff before 2015.

well, i don't recall seeing his itemised (mbpd) list of new projects and the increases he predicts next to realistic depletion rates for exisitng fields.

he talks about this country and that country adding x mbpd capacity, but what about naming the individual fields/projects where this is going to happen?
does he ever do that?

anyone care to fill in the blanks here?

[qwanta]

Daniel Yergin challenged on NPR (OnPoint)
Did anyone catch this show last night? I caught it by chance in my car last night, and they featured Daniel Yergin. I was expecting the usual wishy-washy NPR stuff, but the host Tom Ashbrook really had Yergin on the ropes! He was quoting Simmons, T.Boone Pickins and having none of the usual cornucopian economist drivel that Yergin was coming up with. link

When it comes to oil and Americans, that hideous price at the gas pump is just the beginning of big, scary issues these days. Next in line will be the winter heating bill -- sure to be punishing this year. But the really big monsters coming out of the closet are 1) the eye-popping vulnerability of the American energy infrastructure, as demonstrated by Hurricane Katrina as she tore through Gulf pumping and refinery capacity and 2) the monster issue of "peak oil" -- the rising view that we are on the scary downhill slope of oil.
Oil super-guru Daniel Yergin knows the issues as well as any man alive. He's in the middle of crisis and controversy. Hear a conversation with Yergin on why the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina is now pushing America toward an energy disaster.

[LadyRuby]

Interesting. Yergin's full of it.

[emersonbiggins]

Did anybody catch the Parade Magazine (inserted w/ most Sunday newspapers) entitled 'How High Can It Go?' It had Daniel Yergin asserting (as usual) that our problems with energy lie mostly above ground in geopolitics, rather than below ground. It went on, basically outlining the current demand vs. supply, production vs. discovery stats and stated that this is definitely a cause for concern. Then came the usual self-congratulatory hubris for the much higher efficiency with which the U.S. economy uses energy nowadays, as compared with the 1970s. The article, unsurprisingly enough, ignores what has happened to our energy-intensive manufacturing sector in that same period.

Anyways, the article was only semi-informative, but might serve as a broader warning to the general public, seeing as the circulation of Parade has to be in the tens of millions.

Discuss.

[aahala]

Thanks for mentioning. I usually throw Parade out with the other 73 inserts
that come with the Sunday paper.

I agree with you it was pretty standard stuff. Meant for the average Joe
who had three minutes. That's the readership. Fairly unbiased though.

[emersonbiggins]

Thanks for mentioning. I usually throw Parade out with the other 73 inserts
that come with the Sunday paper.

I agree with you it was pretty standard stuff. Meant for the average Joe
who had three minutes. That's the readership. Fairly unbiased though.

Yeah, I agree. At least energy concerns are starting to enter the mainstream media with some modicum of thoughtful analysis and discussion. Better that than the typical Fox News 'us versus them' pablum-style approach to energy matters.

[Paul64]

I did read it. The problem with the article, besides not actually mentioning the PO issue or including the views of those petroleum analysts who actually speak about PO (in other words, most analysts aside from Yergin), is that the energy problem was not discussed in context with the economic problem...the problem of the fractional reserve banking system that requires growth to avoid collapse...and that, given the current massive debt burden, even a small decline in petrol supply can produce such a collapse. Of course you and I and most everyone else here agree and understand this basic reality.

Honestly, I didn't really see with the article even a decent modicum of good analysis. But a more than superficial presentation would take a depth of analysis most Parade readers, who I guess are more interested in Brad and Angelina's latest escapades than serious understanding of real issues, have the time or patience to absorb. And it would do no good to actually possibly panic people with reality now, would it? So the emotional and practical response of readers is sure to be, 'ho hum' and go on with their lives.

[rogerhb]

It had Daniel Yergin asserting (as usual) that our problems with energy lie mostly above ground in geopolitics, rather than below ground.

I would agree, it's the population above ground that are the problem. The population six feet under won't cause too many issues.

[emersonbiggins]

...most Parade readers, who I guess are more interested in Brad and Angelina's latest escapades than serious understanding of real issues, have the time or patience to absorb.

Actually, it could have been worse. Instead of Yergin, they could've just asked Brad and Angelina what their thoughts on the current energy crisis were. The sheeple would certainly eat that up.

[SinisterBlueCat]

Actually, it could have been worse. Instead of Yergin, they could've just asked Brad and Angelina what their thoughts on the current energy crisis were. The sheeple would certainly eat that up.

worse? how could tha possibly be worse? at least then people would pay attention.

I wobble between wanting people to know, and wanting them not to know. if they know, I think and hope maybe we can all join hands and do something. but then I slap myself. Then I want people to stay stupid...then maybe that way they will just fall off the cliff and what is salvagable will remain for the rest.

Brad and Angelina, good lord. You know if people really got to see them in real life, they would die...either of shock or by laughter....it is amazing what photoshop and a good PR person can do for you.

[emersonbiggins]

Actually, it could have been worse. Instead of Yergin, they could've just asked Brad and Angelina what their thoughts on the current energy crisis were. The sheeple would certainly eat that up.

worse? how could tha possibly be worse? at least then people would pay attention.

I wobble between wanting people to know, and wanting them not to know. if they know, I think and hope maybe we can all join hands and do something. but then I slap myself. Then I want people to stay stupid...then maybe that way they will just fall off the cliff and what is salvagable will remain for the rest.

Brad and Angelina, good lord. You know if people really got to see them in real life, they would die...either of shock or by laughter....it is amazing what photoshop and a good PR person can do for you.

People will know something's up in the next year or so, anyways. It might not be labeled 'Peak Oil', but the crises that ensue will surely be symptoms of the lack of spare energy capacity.
The jig is about up, yo.

[coyote]

Reserves are up
Not everyone agrees that oil production is nearing a peak. "I don't think the evidence is there," said Daniel Yergin, founder of Massachusetts-based Cambridge Energy Research Associates.
His team of geologists and petroleum engineers has done an oil field-by-oil field analysis and concluded that world oil production capacity will increase by nearly 20 percent between 2004 and 2010, and that since the 1990s discoveries of new oil reserves have exceeded production.
Yergin, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his 1991 book chronicling the history of the oil industry, said he supports the search for more fuel-efficient technologies. But since the 1990s, he argued, the world has "added more oil [reserves] than has been produced."

Since 1990 the world has added more oil reserves than has been produced? What?

This is the kind of statement that just confuses me. Plenty of other geologists are saying that we are now using 2 to 4 barrels for every barrel found. We've all seen the charts. Yet here is Yergin saying the opposite. Where does this tremendous discrepancy come from, and how is a poor non-scientist like myself supposed to come to anything resembling an informed opinion? Is it just that Yergin and his team are ignoring the backdating of reserves discoveries that Campbell and others go on about? If so, how could this Pulitzer Prize winner fall into such a simple trap?

If anyone has suggestions for how to make sense out of all the information and misinformation (as some of it must be) out there, please let me know. Something other than "Dude, you don't really believe that guy, do you?" I don't believe him or disbelieve him. I would like to know which experts are supplying the believable analyses. They all seem to disagree with each other, not just over conjectures but over numbers which should be verifiable, one way or the other. TIA

[Antimatter]

It is true that reserves have increased according to most sources, but everyone agrees that new field discoveries are less than consumption.

and that since the 1990s discoveries of new oil reserves have exceeded production.

..was either a misquote or Yergin was being tricky. Reserves growth makes up the difference. Backdating reserve growth to date of discovery gives a clearer picture, but implicit is the assumption that reserve growth will suddenly stop.