[charmcitysking]

Seems to me, as a person who is 'outside the oil patch' (is that the term? ) like PO is the most known, unknown issue. Mountains of research and statistical data to support the claim that PO is upon us and we are beginning to feels it's effects. Not very much coverage or debate from within the MSM. Why is that? Global Warming/Climate Change/Environmental Awareness is pretty mainstream now - plenty of celebrities and pop culture figures are campaigning for people to go green. Where's PO's 'celebs'?

Is it because people who acknowledge PO's existence are genuinely smarter (or maybe braver?) for accepting and acting on such information than those who do not?

Is it purposely ignored, not talked about enough and/or downplayed by major media outlets? (I could only laugh when I ran a search of 'peak oil' on foxnews.com. There were more articles (plural) on the first five search pages for cosmetic skin oils than there were articles that specifically mentioned PO (which was 0). I didn't bother to search past that)

^^ If that is the case, then why do they do that? Could widespread, general acknowledgement and acceptance of PO lead to a fundamental change in the way money works? In the way government budgets and spending is allocated? Would this be a threat to the Elite/Upper Class' dominance of society?

Or is the debate really that close, and the jury is still out on this one?

Geeze, even PETA has more celeb clout than PO...

[SeaGypsy]

Insightful post and OP Charm.

From where I'm observing it's very much a case of the Piper calling the tune. Peak oil is already a major thorn in the side of the greatest religion the world has ever known- Miracle Economics and Perpetual Growth. The MSM is utterly dependent on a beguiled public, who in turn are almost universally dependent on the utterly impossible ongoing of the system as we know it.

No government of any importance is calling for a new paradigm- the only one making any sense for the long term- winding down to a steady state in terms of resources and economics. Nobody has come up with a viable model on how such might even be possible. The game as it is has taken hundreds, if not thousands of years to progress to where it now is. Even the cleverest of people, well aware of the implications of the growth imperative, struggle for meaningful solutions to this awful mess.

There is no debate really that oil will or has peaked and will wane. There is debate that alternatives are available and viable- almost universally these angles are joined at the hip to the growth paradigm- ignoring the fact that even were a viable alternative to oil to emerge we are still stuck in an economic system which is slowly but surely strangling our biosphere.

The MSM has no interest in exploring the ramifications of the most fundamental problems of the system in place. Were the masses somehow made suddenly aware of these, they might just stop playing the game- a highly unlikely disaster for the MSM, politics as we know it, the 1% and the 20% under them.

Much easier to focus on very long term problems which are fundamentally out of individual control, that plus the absolute tripe which passes as newsworthy- celebrity bum shapes etc.

[ralfy]

FWIW, the IEA itself has already acknowledged the peak oil predicament, and in its report argues that a lot of cooperation and coordination will have to take place between governments for the next few decades in order to adjust to such.

The problem is that the global economy in which these governments operate is capitalist and based on competition, which means a lot of oil and resources will be needed to maintain economic growth, meet the wants of a growing global middle class (which allows the present middle class and the financial elite to earn), and meet the needs of the global population amid environmental damage and long-term effects of peak oil.

With that, most will not spend or consume less and will not support governments that want the same. Obviously, governments will not support these initiatives as they lead to lower tax revenues. The same goes for businesses, which can only earn from more spending and consumption.

[John_A]

Seems to me, as a person who is 'outside the oil patch' (is that the term? ) like PO is the most known, unknown issue. Mountains of research and statistical data to support the claim that PO is upon us and we are beginning to feels it's effects.

Rapidly increasing oil production in countries decades past their peaks and all time highs in liquid fuels production is.....what?

Where's PO's 'celebs'?

They claimed all the peak oilers had daddy issues and were psychotic. And then became astrologists. Makes you wonder what it means exactly, being a PO "celeb".

Is it because people who acknowledge PO's existence are genuinely smarter (or maybe braver?) for accepting and acting on such information than those who do not?

Well, there are other things they might be as well. Besides so badly wrong they were assaulted by JD.

Or is the debate really that close, and the jury is still out on this one?

Geeze, even PETA has more celeb clout than PO...

PO got a writeup announcing itself to the world some 8 years ago now, right there for everyone to see, and then decide for themselves. Front page, above the fold.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2005-10-16-oil-1a-cover-usat_x.htm

and then this began to happen and people began to ask exactly the question you just did..."is the debate really that close".

[SeaGypsy]

Classic John A trollery- an ounce of truth is all it takes to make a strawman. Those making their living from peak oil based prophesy are struggling at present, this is true and just. However we have more cautious pundits here mostly. Peakers can generally be divided into- fast crash (as John as so kindly pointed out above), slow crash (most of the folks on here), and no crash- folks like John A, Oilfinder 2, Rune and a few others- we generally here refer to these as 'Cornies' or cornucopians. John is at the extreme Cornie end- he thinks money makes oil- we can print money- therefore there will never be an oil shortage. Most other cornies are in the Rune category- more comonly known as 'technofix'.

I'm sure you will figure out where you fit soon enough Charm

[John_A]

Classic John A trollery- an ounce of truth is all it takes to make a strawman. Those making their living from peak oil based prophesy are struggling at present, this is true and just.

Thank you for proclaiming it is not trollery. Besides those already discredited, how about those hoping for a paying speaking jig somewhere?



Bloggers looking to move up and become an MSM source? (as though that gang needs anyone else who doesn't know oil from a hole in their head)

However we have more cautious pundits here mostly. Peakers can generally be divided into- fast crash (as John as so kindly pointed out above), slow crash (most of the folks on here), and no crash- folks like John A, Oilfinder 2, Rune and a few others- we generally here refer to these as 'Cornies' or cornucopians. John is at the extreme Cornie end- he thinks money makes oil- we can print money- therefore there will never be an oil shortage. Most other cornies are in the Rune category- more comonly known as 'technofix'.

JohnA thinks if you don't account for the obvious factor of price, just like Rockman says, you may as well pack up and go home early, because you won't ever be able to guess the correct answer.

That isn't Cornie, that is just accepting that as much as economics is a nasty, vague, arm waving specialty, you cannot get it right without incorporating the basics of that "science" into the mix.

[charmcitysking]

Makes you wonder what it means exactly, being a PO "celeb".

Sorry John, I should have clarified. I wasn't referring to prominent voices within' the PO movement (in regards to Simmons and Savinar), I was alluding more to actual Hollywood celebrities; you know, the people who's lives are so much more important and cooler than ours that we have to hear about what they had for breakfast and where they are shopping every day on the news.

This is what I mean about being a 'PO Celeb': http://www.ecopedia.com/lifestyle/10-ce ... l-warming/

^^ A list of 10 celebrities and the efforts they have made to combat Global Warming. This list includes names such as:

-Cameron Diaz
-Brad Pitt
-Leonardo DiCaprio
-Sting
-Ted Danson
-Alicia Silverstone


There's tons of these lists. Celebs for animal rights. Celebs for abortion. Celebs for Trayvon.

We need a new publicist.

and then this began to happen and people began to ask exactly the question you just did..."is the debate really that close".

`

^^ Is this increase in production coming from conventional sources of oil? Or is it because of fracking? If so, that HARDLY shores up the debate. If pumping conventional crude is unsustainable for the future, the risks and expenses of fracking aren't exactly the answer we've all been looking for...

While we're throwing up PO celeb pics, here's one of my favorites:



Hey Rockman, do you think CC drinks his Guinness warm or cold??

[SeaGypsy]

Celebrities for die-off?
Celebrities for recognizing their own futility?
Celebrities for switching off the TV, never buying another magazine again?
Celebrities for ignoring celebrities?

The truth is gruesome Charm. These people's job is to be the antidote to the ugly in people's pathetic and boring, meaningless lives.

Google celebrity dropouts. 'About 261,000 results'- all about their lack of education- none about dropping out of celebrity itself.

[John_A]

Makes you wonder what it means exactly, being a PO "celeb".

Sorry John, I should have clarified. I wasn't referring to prominent voices within' the PO movement (in regards to Simmons and Savinar), I was alluding more to actual Hollywood celebrities; you know, the people who's lives are so much more important and cooler than ours that we have to hear about what they had for breakfast and where they are shopping every day on the news.

I find the idea of using celebs, using your definition, as absolutely revolting. Foolish amateurs such as those I've mentioned are amusing certainly, but those "celebs" specializing in nothing more than being known or seen, and expecting that to have value in the world is nothing more than a recipe for near term human extinction. These are people who eat meat and don't know where it comes from, are vegetarian but drive Hummers and fly everywhere (their time being important enough to generate tons of CO2 without thinking about it for second because being vegetarian means they are going to save the world), flick on a light switch and for the life of anyone couldn't be expected to know how this magic works.

While they might be fine for advertising in the modern, capitalist, "dumb it down to the most ignorant of the masses" sense, it is my opinion that the world would be a much happier, nicer, realist place if everyone in the LA Basin were to suddenly drop dead this afternoon.

So using them to explain a relatively complex topic, understanding the same sorts of topics most school children naturally avoid in their hopes of easing through school into a society which rewards people for being seen, strikes me as beyond the foolish information handed out by the peak oil celeb types, venturing in dangerous country.

^^ A list of 10 celebrities and the efforts they have made to combat Global Warming. This list includes names such as:

-Cameron Diaz
-Brad Pitt
-Leonardo DiCaprio
-Sting
-Ted Danson
-Alicia Silverstone


There's tons of these lists. Celebs for animal rights. Celebs for abortion. Celebs for Trayvon.

Thank you for proving my point with that list. Celebs for Trayvon, that one is downright funny.

We need a new publicist.

Now THAT isn't a bad idea. As we've seen in the recent ASPO thread, when ASPO is trying to flee the consequences of the words in the name of their organization, you are right, there needs to be someone new. Certainly ASPO appears to be fleeing the field.

and then this began to happen and people began to ask exactly the question you just did..."is the debate really that close".

`

^^ Is this increase in production coming from conventional sources of oil? Or is it because of fracking? If so, that HARDLY shores up the debate. If pumping conventional crude is unsustainable for the future, the risks and expenses of fracking aren't exactly the answer we've all been looking for...

Increased production from the US is because of horizontal wells and extensive hydraulic fracturing of tight and shale formations. And the distinction between conventional and this kind of production is irrelevant. Why? Because what is being demanded isn't oil from a particular type of geologic formation, but for gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. And Americans don't care if that is manufactured from light sweet conventionally obtained oil, or heavy sour, or oily sand, or tight formations, or hydrates, or marshmellows and unicorn farts.

So you might not think other kinds of oils are the answer, but we've changed oil types in the past, have been doing it for years now, and as long as you and I and those celebs can use the manufactured product to run our jet skiis in the river this weekend and watch NASCAR racing, the source of the chemical feedstock just doesn't cross our minds any more than that of the celebs who don't know where electricity comes from.

I think education matters more than even having a publicist, but maybe I'm old fashioned that way.

[SeaGypsy]

Your best post yet John IMO.

Tanada did a thread about how if modern nukes got fast tracked we could suck the CO2 out of the air and turn it into liquid fuels (over-simplifying but that's the gist of it). In this sense it's not oil per-se which is the only problem, but the will to do what it will take to replace it and the will to get off the perpetual growth economic paradigm.

Meanwhile, even at $100 (even at $500) a barrel- oil is just so damn cheap- the impetus to replace it with something better just isn't there.

[John_A]

Meanwhile, even at $100 (even at $500) a barrel- oil is just so damn cheap- the impetus to replace it with something better just isn't there.

One persons better is just another persons disgust for the status quo....or new technology.....or change in lifestyle....or is just different, and therefore bad.

Each of us has a choice to make in light of our own economic situations. Those celebs will drive their Cadillac Escalades with 20" wheels from a gala dinner to contribute to the political candidate of their choice who says he/she will be eco-friendly and the celebs now figure they are relieved of the personal responsibility of having to do anything else.

Is that "better" than them growing a garden? Driving a Prius instead? Not driving at all? When we all go to make these decisions in light of our economic circumstances, what is better? Give me nuke power too cheap to be worth measuring! Is that better? Some people, like maybe those living in Tokyo, might not think so, while those living near a coastline might. More natural gas! Is that better? Certainly the city planners in Towanda, PA would think so. Those in Dimrock, PA? Not so much.

[charmcitysking]

Ok then forget celebrities. PO has zero place in popular culture; it goes against every thing the Hollywood and fame industry stand for. I get that. Dumb suggestion.

The intent behind my OP was to explore ways to bring the topic of PO to simple people. Is that even a goal of many in the PO community? Would that even be possible or desirable? The more I think about it, the more improbable it seems, yes...

As I've read some discussions between posters on the opposite ends of the PO debate, there seems to be one point that they do agree on: the global economic paradigm is designed for failure.

The only way to change that would be through reaching out to the masses. PO and hydrocarbon depletion play a big role in the wealth/power gap within society. Politicians aren't going to just up and vote all of their campaign contributors, the benefactors of this system, out of their cushy lifestyles. How do you change the way humans think and act on a mass scale?

IDK, I just don't really see things getting better for our species in the coming decades, regardless if oil production increases or decreases. Something's eventually gotta give, and maybe the damage could be mitigated if a huge number pf people were inspired and demanded change. Maybe I'm a special type of cornie for having that dream.

Has the script for modern society already been written? Will we just keep consuming our finite natural resources until they're all gone, then die off in mass numbers, with the few survivors living primitively? How do cornies think this will all play out?

Sorry, I said I was going to ask alot of questions!

[charmcitysking]

Increased production from the US is because of horizontal wells and extensive hydraulic fracturing of tight and shale formations. And the distinction between conventional and this kind of production is irrelevant. Why? Because what is being demanded isn't oil from a particular type of geologic formation, but for gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. And Americans don't care if that is manufactured from light sweet conventionally obtained oil, or heavy sour, or oily sand, or tight formations, or hydrates, or marshmellows and unicorn farts.

So you might not think other kinds of oils are the answer, but we've changed oil types in the past, have been doing it for years now, and as long as you and I and those celebs can use the manufactured product to run our jet skiis in the river this weekend and watch NASCAR racing, the source of the chemical feedstock just doesn't cross our minds any more than that of the celebs who don't know where electricity comes from.

I think education matters more than even having a publicist, but maybe I'm old fashioned that way.

Is Hydraulic Fracturing a sustainable method of extraction? By that I mean, will we be able to frac for as long as we have been drilling conventionally? I understand that the end product is the same. I wasn't concerned about the oil type, I was wondering about the method of obtaining it.

[SeaGypsy]

Ok then forget celebrities. PO has zero place in popular culture; it goes against every thing the Hollywood and fame industry stand for. I get that. Dumb suggestion.

There is no such thing as a dumb question.

The intent behind my OP was to explore ways to bring the topic of PO to simple people. Is that even a goal of many in the PO community? Would that even be possible or desirable? The more I think about it, the more improbable it seems, yes...

The further you 'bring the topic of PO to simple people' the further they will back away; just as we all find with our friends and family most of the time.

As I've read some discussions between posters on the opposite ends of the PO debate, there seems to be one point that they do agree on: the global economic paradigm is designed for failure.

There is consensus the system will need to change to a steady state eventually, how, when, if- these all remain in contention.

The only way to change that would be through reaching out to the masses. PO and hydrocarbon depletion play a big role in the wealth/power gap within society. Politicians aren't going to just up and vote all of their campaign contributors, the benefactors of this system, out of their cushy lifestyles. How do you change the way humans think and act on a mass scale?

You probably don't- nature- reality is what has the ultimate last say.

IDK, I just don't really see things getting better for our species in the coming decades, regardless if oil production increases or decreases. Something's eventually gotta give, and maybe the damage could be mitigated if a huge number pf people were inspired and demanded change. Maybe I'm a special type of cornie for having that dream.

Nothing wrong with having a dream! When our readership here goes from thousands a day to millions- then we know we are getting somewhere, until then- at least we have each other to talk to

Has the script for modern society already been written? Will we just keep consuming our finite natural resources until they're all gone, then die off in mass numbers, with the few survivors living primitively? How do cornies think this will all play out?

Sorry, I said I was going to ask alot of questions!

No need to apologize Charm. The best we could ever hope for is that somehow humanity becomes rational enough to look squarely at these issues, begin the process of implementing progress towards non violent population control (reduction). The way things are- this is impossible until reality (nature) nips the current paradigm in the bud. It may happen sooner than people think. It's going to take a serious kicking to make it happen- but it's not totally impossible.

[Pops]

This is really one of the long standing questions around here, how to "educate" the public and in what way should they be educated.

There is no doubt that oil production will eventually reach a maximum and decline, oil is finite after all. But it isn't like the Y2k problem where there was a date to shout. We know oil production will peak, just not when or what the peak will look like: pointy, flat, smooth, bumpy or even if we are there until we're well past - look at the smaller peaks on the way down the back of the US peak. AAK, GOM, now shale, none reversed the overall trend for long but no one forecast them beforehand.

And of course neither do we know what the reaction will be, or what mitigation might take place before or during the initial phases of decline, yadda, yadda, etcetera and so forth. In other words it's foolish to put too much stock into predicting the future and if you can't predict the future how do you educate folks about it?


In fact as I think about it, the current mood seems to be kind of Y2k-ish - - - actually, kind of Y2k+1 - ish.

The most dramatic peak prognosticators all said oil would have peaked and be in decline by now, but since it hasn't, the deniers say it's just like Y2k, it never will! We're saved! You can hear this argument made all the time in the form of "they've been saying the same thing forever." Of course the optimistic prophets were not much better, they said we'd be over 100MMb/d by now and oil would be in the $30 range.

But for some reason, folks have bought the OilCo PR line that there is no problem, that horizontal drilling and fracking is the Plumb from the Energy Fairy's bum that makes everything peachy. They even say that it is demand that's peaked and folks no longer even want to drive! LOL If demand had peaked, prices would be in the toilet instead of the highest yearly average ever for the longest period ever.

The PR spin for them is obvious, we're destined to be Saudi America, so why not export it?

I think it's pretty obvious Saudi America ain't gonna be our new name, even in the most optimistic scenario there might be 5MMb/d of tight oil produced in the US over the next few years before decline so we'll not even cover our own consumption. So far there is no fracking of commercial amounts of tight oil anywhere else in the world that I know of. They are trying but I haven't heard of great gobs hitting the market.

Anyway, back to educating. The saying is "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink." The bible says: how can an Ethiopian change his skin any more than a leopard his spots? ---- Point is, people in general are very hard to deflect from established habit. They prefer the easy route, acquiring stuff, comfort, pleasure, etc. Telling them they need to cut back, get more resilient, build up some slack in their personal economic system is akin to telling the tiger to change his stripes. (ah, got my metaphorical quota in one paragraph - or quota of metaphor if you will)

Folks aren't going to change because of some revelation found online or browbeating from their cousin. They may change a little if they think it's cool, like Crunchy-Local-Free-Range-Antibiotic-Free-Grass-Fed-Beef. But folks who buy that from me are paying more and proud of it! They do it to talk about it and are the same folks who are driving Teslas. They aren't doing it because they think the end of BAU is upon us, if they thought that they'd be doing something entirely different.


So I guess that's all a long way of saying; lead by example. "Get Small" is the main goal, get resilient, get in a place where if you become redundant you won't care. Making money now is cool but use it to not need money "then". Brag about the fact that you ride a bike or take the bus or live so close to everything you can walk or live so far from everything you don't need to

.

[Beery1]

Hey Rockman, do you think CC drinks his Guinness warm or cold??

All beer is served cold. The difference is that some beer is served so close to freezing so that you can't taste how crappy it is.

[KaiserJeep]

I believe that huge numbers of people can sense that an apocalypse is coming, and in not too long a period of time. Thanks to the lack of major media coverage, they don't understand the implications of peak oil. Fox News Channel does not cover Peak Oil because the other media outlets that Rupert Murdoch owns include The Wall Street Journal, Barron's Magazine, the Far Eastern Economic Review (based in Hong Kong) and SmartMoney. Murdoch is heavily invested (both money and philosophy) in the paradigm of unlimited growth, not at all compatible with Peak Oil.

The symptoms of the sense of impending doom in popular culture are such things as the popularity of Zombies, the sheer number of apocalyptic movies and TV series, and the ever-present preoccupation with disaster movies. The folks know that time is growing short but few of them suspect that hydrocarbon depletion will be the thing that kills them. Far more people believe that burning oil and coal will kill us, and to suggest that we will deplete oil and coal before actual damage is done is therefore ludicrous and untrue.

In the end, I do not believe that a foreknowledge of the approaching oil depletion makes much difference. Most US citizens will survive, I believe. In those countries where humans exist on the edge of poverty, famine will be widespread, and billions will starve. It will be very like the Dark Ages following the plague, with the exception that it will not be dark, the misery will be preserved in bit-perfect digital storage for future generations.

[John_A]

I believe that huge numbers of people can sense that an apocalypse is coming, and in not too long a period of time.

Sure. But then the apocalypse doesn't show up, everyone giggles for awhile, and the world goes on. How many apocalypse claims are allowed before it becomes natural to ignore the next one, regardless of cause?

You do realize that Planet X didn't crash into our planet on December 21, 2012 and kill everyone, right?

And Harold Camping has a reputation for saying the same thing you just did?

Thanks to the lack of major media coverage, they don't understand the implications of peak oil.

Maybe they do, or better yet understand it has already happened, didn't cause an apocalypse, and generally just means that as humanity chews through the next 6 or 7 trillion barrels of resources from which they will manufacture gasoline, diesel and jet fuel that more expensive is not an apocalypse?

The price of gasoline in the US has what, tripled since the last 90's? Seen any zombies? Me neither.

Fox News Channel does not cover Peak Oil because the other media outlets that Rupert Murdoch owns include The Wall Street Journal, Barron's Magazine, the Far Eastern Economic Review (based in Hong Kong) and SmartMoney.

Maybe Fox News isn't covering peak oil because they can't see any zombies either? Or worse yet, peak oil and a tripling of prices here in the States can't even stop THIS from happening.

In the end, I do not believe that a foreknowledge of the approaching oil depletion makes much difference.

Good call. Particularly because oil depletion began in a serious manner in 1859 and everyone alive today has been raised in this environment (foreknowledge maybe not mattering so much).

Most US citizens will survive, I believe. In those countries where humans exist on the edge of poverty, famine will be widespread, and billions will starve. It will be very like the Dark Ages following the plague, with the exception that it will not be dark, the misery will be preserved in bit-perfect digital storage for future generations.

Yeah, it has been awhile since anyone has advocated strongly for the Doomer Porn angle to peak oil. It seems like peak oil happening a few years back, and the dieoff not happening, took a little wind from their sails.

[ralfy]

Frontlines: Fuel of War

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ppt_kTilbgs

[John_A]

Is Hydraulic Fracturing a sustainable method of extraction? By that I mean, will we be able to frac for as long as we have been drilling conventionally?

Of course. With a caveat, define "drilling conventionally"? Drilling started using the equivalent of a spudding beam or springboards centuries ago. Rotary drilling, what most people would consider the current "modern" drilling method started in about 1901. Coiled tubing drilling, the future, is currently being prototyped, tested and applied on the North Slope, coming soon to a development pad near you in the Lower 48, if it isn't here already.

So we have centuries of drilling one way, a century of so of another, and the future is yet to be written. "Modern" fracking (that not involved in just dropping explosives in the hole and hoping something of interest happens) has been around for some 60+ years, and certainly hasn't been a less important aspect of unconventional resource development along the way, but an ever increasing one. So sure...it is sustainable for as long as it needs to be, which when dealing with crappy rocks, will be a long, long time. As you dive deeper into the resource pyramid, that is EXACTLY one of the problems which needs solved.

I understand that the end product is the same. I wasn't concerned about the oil type, I was wondering about the method of obtaining it.

It has been changing, is changing today, and will continue changing tomorrow. But fracking looks like it is set for a long run, long meaning throughout the rest of my career anyway.