Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Newsseeker wrote:

Loderunner wrote:There was really no talk about conservation. They are basically going with the assumption that alternatives will simply replace all the oil we currently use. That it's only a matter of timing, and not to worry, you can still have your suburban lifestyle. There were really no details explaining the enormity of the problem.

Coincidentally, oil is now up to $2.01 to $66.09 as I write this.

What else are we to expect from the government?

Well, if you read the report, you will see that they don't assume alternatives will replace "all the oil we currently use."

34% maybe, if the challenges are met and if the peak is delayed, and if the price of oil stays high.

We can only be assured of the last "if." Failing a depression.

If the peak is delayed, however, these technologies have a greater potential to mitigate the consequences. DOE projects that the technologies could displace up to 34 percent of U.S. consumption in the 2025 through 2030 time frame, if the challenges are met. The level of effort dedicated to overcoming challenges will depend in part on sustained high oil prices to encourage sufficient investment in and demand for alternatives.

34% by 2025/2030. Is this current consumption or projected?

If current, that means about 7mbpd.

If projected, that means about 10 mbpd.

If peak oil is now or before 2025, then that will be just peanuts.

I saw no discussion of projected decline rates in the report.

emersonbiggins wrote:

MonteQuest wrote:Also, it was quite obvious that the report was focused on "finding a way to keep the gas tanks full" and little else.

No mention of conservation.

No mention of efficiency.

No mention of mass transit.

No mention of wind, solar, wave, tidal, or nuclear. Either because, like the Hirsch Report, they are not considered viable mitigation wedges, or you can't put electricity in a gas tank.

Or, as I have been pointing out for over two years on this site; the lack of transmission capacity

Well, to be fair Monte, it appears that this report wasn't designed to suggest mitigation options but, rather, to illustrate the problem at hand. I'd surmise that it is up to the agencies charged with formalizing a response to this (DoE, DOT, etc.) to come up with those solutions.

Yes, it was. They clearly said it was to "assess" mitigation options.

Look under Scope and Methodology.

To assess the potential for transportation technologies to mitigate the consequences of a peak and decline in oil production, we examined options to develop alternative fuels and technologies to reduce energy consumption in the transportation sector.

However, like is said, the focus was on filling the gas tanks in the transport sector.

Mea culpa. I didn't spot any mention of commercial airlines or trucking, either. Extremely myopic.

If keeping the cars running at the expense of the economy is of the utmost importance to the feds, then we are doomed.

CNBC talked about the GAO study today.
Matthew Simmons was interviewed again on this topic.

Here is the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fo3sxhBylw&eurl

edit; link replaced with youtube link

chuck6877 wrote:CNBC talked about the GAO study today.
Matthew Simmons was interviewed again on this topic.

Here is the link:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=233654042&play=1

For those that watch it: Does it cut out for you after about 4 minutes like it does for me? I can't watch the rest of the interview.

Chuck

Pickens and Simmons both on the same day?

Seems that PO awareness is gaining some momentum.


I did have a similar problem. I suggest closing all other internet windows when watching.

..

MarkL wrote:Someone put the CNBC video on youtube:

Video

Mark

I did

Surprising how the video is better quality and uninterrupted once on YouTube!

Here's the CBC report on the GAO report. Matt Simmons is in it.

Downloadable WMV file:

http://www.savefile.com/files/591216

Or view on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fo3sxhBylw

Khebab,

Thanks. It was bugging me that every time it made it to around 4:37 it would stop!

The obsessive compulsive in me made me try to watch it about 5 times to see if it would ever show me the last 3 minutes

Thanks again,
Chuck

I do not want any government to do anything about peak oil. they tend to make problems worse and will ruin everyone's individual preps.

Many other MSM are discussing GAO: BW, WSJ etc.
Main quote?
"Peak oil in 2040".

There's no hope.

MarkL wrote:Someone put the CNBC video on youtube:

Video

Mark

It's funny how they say Peak Oil can occur anytime between now and 2040 while in fact the world peaked last year...

GAO report:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07283.pdf

Simmons' response:
http://www.energybulletin.net/28016.html

Following Simmons is further coverage of this move by the GAO.

{merged by Shannymara}

Finally, kudos to Kudlow & Company for their direct no bs coverage with Matt.

The point is exactly that the debate has been legitimized.

Quick picking at the content; it's irrelevant, for now.

Government is about to step in. It will get ugly.

MD wrote:Government is about to step in. It will get ugly.

What, more that it did in the last century you mean? That's not possible.



Without oil, these pictures will start to rest where they belong - in the history books.

JPL

Pathetic. They're boasting about asking questions, yet reproduce claims such as the IEA's projection without analysis. This is what these people think. This is what these other people think. These people are doing that. No attempt to dig into the data. Sure it's crap, but it's not that crap. Peak in 2040 would need the past to have looked different. Peak in 2020 needs the past to have looked different. They don't yet realise that stuff can be determined already, probably got blinded by the sort of near-term detail we argue about and reduced it to "uncertainty". Just because a bunch of pundits can't agree on the detail of the next 10 years doesn't mean events over multiples of 10 years are subject to the same uncertainty.

I don't know. With that level of getting their act together, maybe we're better off with governments not addressing the problem?

Twilight wrote:I don't know. With that level of getting their act together, maybe we're better off with governments not addressing the problem?

For my own part, I would rather "the government" please not get involved! I would like to see communities, groups, and individuals get involved, but not the government.


But that's because I expect them to crap it up for everyone, not help.

Ludi wrote:For my own part, I would rather "the government" please not get involved!

...

But that's because I expect them to crap it up for everyone, not help.

Yeah, I'm starting to have doubts, feeling maybe I should be careful what I'm wishing. I always thought of energy as a challenge for central planners, felt frustration at the lack of urgency, up until a few days ago thinking even a late command economy response could soften the impact in the event the collapse was gradual rather than instant. But now the subject is appearing on the lips of government for the first time, I'm seeing ignorance (or maybe helplessness) which looks just plain dangerous. Maybe it's best if they went back to sleep, hitting an iceberg is bad enough without evasive action ripping machinery from its mountings.

Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night

Words: Dylan Thomas

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.