[Gary]

I read Matthew Simmon's book shortly after it was published.

What impressed me was the thoroughness of research and analysis. Simmons comes across as a person who is used to sizing up business projects to see if they really will work or not. No goofing around with fuzzy tweaking of numbers or guesswork where thorough research needs to be done.

Simmons also demands real "Transparency." Without transparency we are at the mercy of a variety of people who basically say "trust us, we know" about the supplies of the most important single energy source we have or likely will have over the next two or three decades. Because we are so dependent on petroleum we need to budget our use of petroleum.

We do our household budget based on the best numbers we have available. We need to do a global energy budget in the same way. Simmons makes a good arguement for this.

Simmons is absolutely right that if we do not plan for our energy future, we'll end up with terrible violence. We'll end up with a terrible cost in human life destroyed in war, but also in how many indirect effects of resource war. War uses weapons which destroy and poison the environment. War uses up vast resources that could be spent on better infrastructure for the future. War poisons us as people in ways more than just physical.

I think Simmons is trying to avert the catastrophe that the NeoCons are trying to trigger. "Full spectrum global dominance" is the ultimate "power high" that the NeoCons are aiming for. Full spectrum global dominance is also impossible. In trying to be God, the Neocons come crashing down, creating Hell for everyone on their way. Simmons is working to get people to make plans together based on the best information we can get. That's the way to go.

[pilferage]

You might be able to paraphrase it and post that under fair use...

[Dukat_Reloaded]

FireJack: When you mention the "economey finally breaks" what is going to happen here? Businesses close up, negative gdp growth or more dire such as supermarkets not restocking shelves, 50% plus population unemployed. Many people say the economey will break, but I'd like to know to what extent the downturn will be.

[thorn]

From the American Physical Society: link
Some interesting quotes:

My hope is that [the book] will serve as a wakeup call to the urgency and importance of understanding the limits, not just to Saudi Arabia's oil, but to the entire world's oil supply, because we are clearly approaching the peaking of global oil supply at the same time as the world faces a relentless increase in oil demand.

For the past 15 years, I have become increasingly concerned that all was not well in the oil and gas world, and I have stated my convictions many times. I grew more and more convinced that the purveyors of conventional energy wisdom were peddling an energy blueprint for the 21st century that was fundamentally wrong.

Virtually every oil expert in the world has believed that Middle East oil is so plentiful that it will provide an essentially inexhaustible supply of inexpensive petroleum for the next 30, 50, or even 100 years. No one I ever met, however, had any facts to support this conclusion. The concept was based either on pure optimism or on readily available numbers that had not been audited.

When the global oil crisis becomes apparent to all, it will be interesting to see if the Congress will acknowledge its failure to act responsibly in the 1970s and in the many decades since. Quite recently Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) (we are not related), who is a scientist, has been trying valiantly to educate his colleagues about the Hubbert Curve and its predictable imminent global effects. I have not seen signs that his colleagues are paying attention.

[Hegel]

The absence of audience during R. Bartletts presentations in early 2005 and August 2005 before congress, clearly shows the lack of attention and interest of his "colleagues" concerning this ONE-TIME ISSUE! While those fat-ass-corrupt-to-the-bone-grining-like-DeLay-on-his-Mugshot numbnuts with stupid suits on, were out to debate the pro-and-cons of "intelligent design" and other pre-scientific hog-wash. Even worse than that, the EU held an energy conference in Budapest in late November 2005 debating future energy issues. There were early-bird pensioneers, almost-dead moronic hobby-scientists and a bunch of do-gooders who came up with only one conclusion - that nuclear energy easily and sufficiently substitute natural-gas and oil. No problemo, since nuclear is consider "fossil fuel", too!

With such cretins at the helm, we as human beings really forcibly introduce some kind of sanity-test/idiot-test for politicians or face further hell-bent actions on their behalf ... ah wait ... Iran is about to be flattened in March 2006, I forgot about that one.

[EnergySpin]

who came up with only one conclusion - that nuclear energy easily and sufficiently substitute natural-gas and oil.

Yes it can; it will not have to though

No problemo, since nuclear is consider "fossil fuel", too!

What?

[Hegel]

@EnergySpin: That was the conclusion from one of the closing speakers at this conference. Uran, Petroleum and Natural gas = fossil ergo Uran can fully substitute Petroleum and Natural gas. I also raised my eye-brows, when I heard this ...
Never-the-less, nuclear energy will help to satisfy future demand for electricity, I hope so.

[EnergySpin]

@EnergySpin: That was the conclusion from one of the closing speakers at this conference. Uran, Petroleum and Natural gas = fossil ergo Uran can fully substitute Petroleum and Natural gas. I also raised my eye-brows, when I heard this ...
Never-the-less, nuclear energy will help to satisfy future demand for electricity, I hope so.

Sorry to hear that such nonsense were spoken in an energy conference! Thanks for the clarification Hegel.

[Leanan]

Interesting. The APS newsletter reviews three energy-related books this month. The pessimistic "Twilight in the Desert" and a pair of optimistic books: the rightwing "The End of Oil" by Paul Roberts, and the leftwing "The Hydrogen Economy" by Jeremy Rifkin.

Roberts thinks we can use natural gas as a temporary bridge to...something else that the free market will provide. Rifkin thinks we can use hydrogen, which will be locally generated, thereby freeing us of the tyranny of central control.

As you might expect, this doesn't fly with physicists. The reviewer rightly points out that we don't have much time to build or use the "temporary" bridge, making Roberts' confidence that the free market will provide not very reassuring. And that Rifkin doesn't explain where the energy to make all that hydrogen will come from.

Simmons gets the best review:

...While I can't evaluate Simmons' claims, I find the presentation thoughtful, coherent, well-presented, and scientifically convincing. He stresses the topics on which information is unavailable or uncertain, and he carefully expresses his conclusions in terms that reasonably reflect the uncertainty in the input information. The Saudis have disputed Simmons' claims, so the ball is now in the Saudis' court. If they wish their claims about their projected future high levels of their oil production to be taken seriously, they must unveil their data for the world to evaluate. And we scientists need to be aware of the great anti-scientific efforts of those who would have us believe that resources such as petroleum are effectively infinite.

This is an impressive book. On the book jacket is an endorsement by Nobel Laureate (Chemistry 1996) Richard Smalley who writes, "This book is likely to be the most important ever written about oil."

[EnviroEngr]

Thorn,

In about a week or so, I hope to merge this with the existing book review in the 'Review' forum, unless you object.

[thorn]

In about a week or so, I hope to merge this with the existing book review in the 'Review' forum, unless you object.

Sounds ok to me.

[CoronaWithLime]

I finally found this book at Hudson Bookstores in the chicago air port (damned 7 hour lay over due to the last plane having to land to get more fuel of all things!!) 70 pages done so far, very enjoyable.

[Shea]

I have just read, and was greatly impressed by, Mr. Simmons' book. When I first heard about his book two years ago I dismissed it because I believed Daniel Yergin's views concerning the coming age of plenty.

Well, my views changed when I picked up the Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks ago and noticed a front page story on the Mexican super-giant oilfield, Cantarell. The article noted that the oil industry had been stunned to learn that its production had plunged 20% in just one year, and that Mexico was going to be a net oil importer in approximately eight years. Strangely, the article failed to mention Peak Oil or Hubbert's curve. That same omission was repeated in Daniel Yergin's Pulitzer prize winner, "The Prize."

You can imagine how stunned I was to read "Twilight," and learn how dangerous the world had suddenly become. As a world, we're driving blindfolded at 90 miles per hour into a brick wall.

In short, I think its shameful that our present administration hasn't acted on this information, other than seizing the oilfields of Iraq. It's doubly strange because Mr. Simmons is an adviser to this administration. Or, perhaps Mr. Simmons went public because he couldn't get anyone in the administration to act upon this knowledge. In any case, he cleverly neglected even to mention Iraq.

[Jack1234567890]

I recently came across this book, haven’t bought it yet. Obviously, I haven’t got a chance to read it yet.
But, did anybody read the book (Twilight in the Desert: The coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy by Matthew R. Simmons)

If so, what do you think about this book? Is it worth the read?

I'm very interested in crude oil market. I like to know what you think of the book, and if you agree or disagree with him.

Also, if there's any other book regarding crude oil market (peak oil, and other's aspect of the market as well) plz let me know.

thanks.

[BigTex]

Yes, I have read it. His thesis is that Saudi Arabia is closer to declining production than anyone thinks.

The thing I didn't like about the book is that it is not particularly well written and repeats the same points endlessly. It has a place on the Peak Oil bookshelf.

As for other books, there are probably 10-20 titles that give you a good feel for Peak Oil from different perspectives and different angles.

Just get on Amazon and do a peak oil search. You'll get all the big ones; read the reviews and decide for yourself. I just finished "The End of Oil" and I thought it was a balanced view of the problem and possible solutions. Many peak oil books lean toward the doomerish and can leave you more exhausted than informed.

[Tanada]

I own it and read it cover to cover the first time. Since then I have re-read some sections of it a second time and a couple of them multiple times for historical context.

[watercut]

I have read the book and would have to agree with the comments above that it becomes boring after about 200 pages. The first 200+ pages are quite interesting, however, Simmons then begins to delve into field-by-field production analysis which can become a litte redundant. One must keep in mind that the purpose of the book was to discect Saudi oil production capacity and it hits the mark very well.

The book I would strongly recommend is "The Coming Economic Collapse" by Stephen Leeb. That book is like reading tomorrow's news today. Leeb correctly predicted the Technology bubble bursting and he is also right on with his peak oil projections. Over the past year, the returns generated on his stock recommdations made in the book are downright obscene. Much more upside to come including RIG and others.

Enjoy the books

[skyemoor]

Yes, worth the read. Gives insights into how Saudi geology plays into their ultimate production. Broad and deep overview.

[joewp]

There's a four page thread on it in the Book/Media Reviews forum, click here.