[NoWorries]

But Leo Drollas, who leads oil and gas market analysis and forecasting at the Center for Global Energy Studies in London, said there are plenty of supplies and no looming crisis. He said the report sounds like "scaremongering."

Drollas says production could still slow one day, but only because new reserves will be considered too difficult or expensive to extract.

"Oil could be left in the ground and we could move on to another fuel in the future, not because we're running out of oil but because, economically speaking, it is not worth extracting the oil," Drollas said.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/BUSINESS/10/24/oil.decline/

According to this CNN item, there is no looming oil crisis in oil future. Rather, we will simply "move on" to other fuel sources, and oil will become irrelvant.

The CGESL is a pretty serious outfit -- Any idea how they come up with this cheery scenario? I've read other items like this recently, poo-pooing any talk of Peak Oil, saying it's a myth. And they're coming from serious institutions too.

I'm new to this debate, and I'm just trying to understand how intelligent, informed sources can hold such diametrically opposed viewpoints.

[gnm]

Production has slowed...

What "new fuel source" are they proposing we move on too pray tell...

-G

[Serial_Worrier]

Suuuuuuuure. Nothing to worry about. I've got a bridge in the desert to sell you too. Must be an oil industry shill.

[Iaato]

"Oil could be left in the ground and we could move on to another fuel in the future, not because we're running out of oil but because, economically speaking, it is not worth extracting the oil," Drollas said.

Welcome, No Worries.

Sounds like one more denialist to me. I've got one question for him or for you. What is this other fuel that we could move on to in the future?

Who the heck is Drollas? Never heard of him. One more brilliant financial analyst without any science going for him. The PhD in economics explains it all.

Dr Leo Drollas
Deputy Executive Director & Chief Economist
Heads the CGES’ oil and gas market analysis and forecasting. Specialist on strategic hedging. Former head of energy studies and econometric analysis at BP. Dr Drollas has a PhD in economics from the London School of Economics.

[aflurry]

Drollas says production could still slow one day, but only because new reserves will be considered too difficult or expensive to extract.

"Oil could be left in the ground and we could move on to another fuel in the future, not because we're running out of oil but because, economically speaking, it is not worth extracting the oil," Drollas said.

this is funny because it is exactly the point that doomers use to demonstrate that PO isn't about running out of oil.

the remaining oil is more expensive to extract, meaning it has a lower EROEI. once the EROEI reaches a ratio of 1, it doesn't matter if the core of the earth itself is made of oil, it's totally useless.

the bit about moving on to another source is just a nonsequiter.

on top of all that is the issue of financing and risk. the lower the EROEI, and the more volatile the price of energy, the more risky the investment in these capital intensive projects and the lower the potential return on investment. all that money has to come up front...

[Schadenfreude]

...I'm new to this debate, and I'm just trying to understand how intelligent, informed sources can hold such diametrically opposed viewpoints.

Be careful! If you don't hew to the groupthink doom-bound line around here you will be snarked, sarcasted and vituperated until you show signs of conformance. It's a socialization and indoctrination process reserved for hard-cases.

Look at the uber-Doomers on board here. Wouldn't you prefer to be well-liked and popular like them?

I warn you. Don't even express an interest in technology solutions lest you be ostracized and shunned!!

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!

[ROCKMAN]

Actually Drollas says little that is not true. I would question his characterzation of the "scaremongering" statements but he is correct...we have ample supplies TODAY. "Ample" meaning, of course, that if you have the money there's energy to purchase. And eventually oil extraction will become so expensive we'll resort to other energy sources (WHENEVER that may happen).

I feel that's why egomaniacs like this get airtime. They avoid the details, make obvious but misleading incomplete statements and then tries to draw those who truly do understand PO into debates over semantics. The media loves these guys because they cause confusion and, unfortunately, a confused public often looks to the media for clarification. And that's what advertizers pay the big bucks for: viewership.

[Serial_Worrier]

...I'm new to this debate, and I'm just trying to understand how intelligent, informed sources can hold such diametrically opposed viewpoints.

Be careful! If you don't hew to the groupthink doom-bound line around here you will be snarked, sarcasted and vituperated until you show signs of conformance. It's a socialization and indoctrination process reserved for hard-cases.

Look at the uber-Doomers on board here. Wouldn't you prefer to be well-liked and popular like them?

I warn you. Don't even express an interest in technology solutions lest you be ostracized and shunned!!

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!

Sure, the magic technology fairy is going to save us.

[socrates1fan]

I am not an expert but I do have common sense.
A little research makes this arguement utter bogus.
The world will not end in my opinion but the idea that we don't have to worry harms us more than helps us.
Its like telling yourself your going to be okay instead of patching yourself up and your in the middle of the forest and bleeding to death.
Even if the arguement that we have twenty or thirty years is true then what the hell are we going to do after those years are up?
We can't all magically float off of gas and onto ethanol or solar power.
That kind of fuel should be saved for electricity and water.
If we lived the life we did now on ethanol(and solar would not be able to supply the demand.) then there would not be enough food.
Even though ethanol is made of corn and I know many backward conservative politicians use this arguement but corn is the basic feed for livestock that supplies us with dairy to meat and eggs.
If they disagree so much why don't they tell that to the people paying 10 bucks a gallon in Europe or 4 bucks a gallon here in the US?

[Schadenfreude]

...I'm new to this debate, and I'm just trying to understand how intelligent, informed sources can hold such diametrically opposed viewpoints.

Be careful! If you don't hew to the groupthink doom-bound line around here you will be snarked, sarcasted and vituperated until you show signs of conformance. It's a socialization and indoctrination process reserved for hard-cases.

Look at the uber-Doomers on board here. Wouldn't you prefer to be well-liked and popular like them?

I warn you. Don't even express an interest in technology solutions lest you be ostracized and shunned!!

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!

Sure, the magic technology fairy is going to save us.

See what I mean?

[MD]

I warn you. Don't even express an interest in technology solutions lest you be ostracized and shunned!!

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!

I for one am expecting innovative energy technologies to carry my own career forward through the next twenty years.

Funny, I'm not feeling shunned or ostracized.

[Twilight]

I'm new to this debate, and I'm just trying to understand how intelligent, informed sources can hold such diametrically opposed viewpoints.

There is no opposing viewpoint really. That is peak oil in a nutshell - you use up the profitable stuff, and leave behind the stuff that makes a loss - financially or energetically. "We're running out" (their words) is a strawman.

The difference is only in conclusion. We say reaching that point might be a problem, they say we will make a seamless transition to something else. And who knows? I am happy to take the money. I just do not think it will buy enough time for the next generation to enjoy as high a standard of living.

[Serial_Worrier]

I'm new to this debate, and I'm just trying to understand how intelligent, informed sources can hold such diametrically opposed viewpoints.

There is no opposing viewpoint really. That is peak oil in a nutshell - you use up the profitable stuff, and leave behind the stuff that makes a loss - financially or energetically. "We're running out" (their words) is a strawman.

The difference is only in conclusion. We say reaching that point might be a problem, they say we will make a seamless transition to something else. And who knows? I am happy to take the money. I just do not think it will buy enough time for the next generation to enjoy as high a standard of living.

Well, what is the "something else"? I'd say solar has to be a huge component, but nobody's pushing for it.

[Twilight]

Well, what is the "something else"? I'd say solar has to be a huge component, but nobody's pushing for it.

I don't know. So far $120 oil has not concentrated people's minds. Maybe $150 oil will make them think harder. Give it a few years, and we will see that the consumer end of the market says.

[TheDude]

Another think tank. £1200.00 for a subscription to their newsletter.

Actually Drollas says little that is not true. I would question his characterzation of the "scaremongering" statements but he is correct...we have ample supplies TODAY. "Ample" meaning, of course, that if you have the money there's energy to purchase. And eventually oil extraction will become so expensive we'll resort to other energy sources (WHENEVER that may happen).

The big issue is knock on effects from that transition - possibly making it untenable. To divorce ourselves entirely from oil as a transportation fuel will take a minimum of 10 years in the case of the US, assuming we could crank out that many EVs that fast. In the meantime the discretionary side of the economy will just wither away in a matter of months - who's going to drive 5 miles to a strip mall to buy a corn dog when their income is being wholly devoured by gasoline/electric bills? This is why we're occasionally rude to Pollyannas - or question their sanity. We drive them away, too - anyone heard from Tyler lately? I don't doubt that battery technology has made some amazing advances lately; but we only sell ca. 15 million cars per year. Get used to it.

I feel that's why egomaniacs like this get airtime. They avoid the details, make obvious but misleading incomplete statements and then tries to draw those who truly do understand PO into debates over semantics. The media loves these guys because they cause confusion and, unfortunately, a confused public often looks to the media for clarification. And that's what advertizers pay the big bucks for: viewership.

+1! Hell, +10. The banality of discourse on those shows is just stunning. One theory is of an Iron Triangle of energy producers+analysts/auto+housing manufacturers/mass media. Did I leave anyone out? BAU uber alles.

[Serial_Worrier]

BTW, all those little "out of the way" trips to retail will be eliminated shortly. Everyone I know is combining trips to save gas. Also lowering the thermostat, and driving more fuel-efficient vehicles.

[CrudeAwakening]

Drollas says production could still slow one day, but only because new reserves will be considered too difficult or expensive to extract.

"Oil could be left in the ground and we could move on to another fuel in the future, not because we're running out of oil but because, economically speaking, it is not worth extracting the oil," Drollas said.

And the reader is left with the impression that this is an entirely benign process based on a seamless switch of preferences...

A transition from a society predicated on oil to one based on other fuels is not quite the same thing as a consumer switching from strawberries to apples when strawberries become too expensive.

Anyway, I'm sure the airline industry will take heart from his remarks. After all, alternative fuels are bound to rescue them before they go bust.

[copious.abundance]

Dated November 8, 2007

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/BUSINESS/10/24/oil.decline/

The world has reached the point of maximum oil output and production levels will halve by 2030 -- a situation that will eventually lead to war and disaster, a report claims.

The German-based Energy Watch Group released a report Tuesday saying the world's oil production peaked in 2006 and from now on will drop by around 3 percent a year.

And yet . . .

[TheDude]

And yet...

[copious.abundance]

And yet...

The next time you or anyone else accuses me of posting a forecast (which I get accused of often), I will be sure to remind you of this here post.

And incidentally, that forecast chart is already wrong because it shows 2007 and 2008 already into decline, when, as the chart I showed above demonstrates, it isn't.