<New Oil Age Poster The Oil Drum Questions About the World's Biggest Natural Gas Field>
<DrumBeat: June 8, 2006 DrumBeat DrumBeat: June 10, 2006>

260 comments on DrumBeat: June 9, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

westexas on June 9, 2006 - 10:22am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
As I noted before, notice how the "Unconventional Oil Will Save Us" crowed always talks about reserves and not production rates?

As I have also noted before (based on someone else's post on the Internet), Canadian oil production in 2005 was far below EIA projections made in 2003.  

In regard to Greg Palast, IMO Mr. Palast either grossly misunderstood Dr. Hubbert's work, or he deliberately misrepresented Dr. Hubbert's work.  

From the Texas/Lower 48 article:  

"To be clear, despite what is either a profound misunderstanding of or a misrepresentation of Dr. Hubbert's work in some quarters, Dr. Hubbert was not predicting the end of world oil production by 2006; he was predicting that production peaks when producing regions have consumed about half of their recoverable conventional oil reserves."

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
BrianT on June 9, 2006 - 10:54am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
He's a sharp guy. It's highly unlikely he misunderstood.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
bradshaw on June 9, 2006 - 11:02am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
In regard to Greg Palast, IMO Mr. Palast either grossly misunderstood Dr. Hubbert's work, or he deliberately misrepresented Dr. Hubbert's work.--westexas

BrianT -- You say "He's a sharp guy.  It's highly unlikely he misunderstood."

So basically he deliberately misrepresented Dr. Hubbert's work...?  What's his motivation in doing that?

-- I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm posing the question of his motivation in that direction.  (I had actually posted on Palast while back calling on TODs to debunk him), FYI...

-C.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
BrianT on June 9, 2006 - 11:21am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I don't know for sure. My guess is money. As he has built up a certain sort of credibility among some readers, he is being paid to spin this story. When you read what he says, what it points out is how difficult his (or anyone else's) task really is. The arguments in favor of oil depletion are too strong.You don't have to be a rocket scientist to follow the reasoning. Maybe I'm wrong-maybe Greg got really stupid really fast. Maybe Yergin is mentally challenged.  
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
oldhippie on June 9, 2006 - 1:22pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Palast also has a background in statistics. He can read the numbers. It's very odd to see this sharp guy go this way. No explanation here. It's just odd.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
fallout on June 9, 2006 - 2:01pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Bought and paid for, perhaps?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TrueKaiser on June 9, 2006 - 3:17pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Most likely yes.
money talks and the people we are dealing with think anyone has a price.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Ablokeimet on June 11, 2006 - 9:22am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
It wouldn't be money.  Palast is a Leftist (that's no insult in my books - I'm a good deal to the Left even of him, but I come here to read up about Peak Oil rather than preach my politics) and suffers from a problem common to most people who are committed to their political ideas.  He can't accept an idea that seems to pull the rug out from under his whole philosophy.

Peak Oil challenges a lot of people on the traditional Left because they assume that:

(a) Capitalism can only be surpassed in a society of material plenty for all; and

(b) Admitting that energy consumption is way past a sustainable level and has to be cut would bar the way to socialism.

IMO, he's wrong in that (a) actually says a good deal less than he thinks because the concept of "plenty" is actually a social construct; and (b) is plain incorrect.

At a guess, his idea of "socialism" would probably have a lot more in common with the economics of the late, unlamented USSR than mine does, though I'm certainly not accusing him of supporting the political regime that existed there.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
MillMan on June 9, 2006 - 11:55am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I think most humans overestimate the influence of humanity itself on daily life. I think that's a simple extension of the human ego. Particularly today, after 60 years of abundance in the west, almost none of us include material limits as a variable in our daily calculus. Also, to someone like Palast who does a lot of political commentary, most issues are simply political problems with political solutions.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
step back on June 9, 2006 - 12:35pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Relax,

The fluid flow will never end.
God gave "us" dominion over all things on this Earth.
There are plenty of alternatives for the blood that feeds our non-negotiable way of life. After the sweet and easy ones are gone, why, we'll just drive our straws into the alligators next. No worries:

(Mosquitos are We)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
MicroHydro on June 9, 2006 - 3:30pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Palast is a disinformationalist.  He is a sheepdog or gatekeeper to herd the gullible on the left in the same manner that fellow peak oil deniers Corsi and Alex Jones herd the gullible on the religious right.  So get mad about the 2004 election in Ohio or the abiotic oil coverup or the Illuminati staging mock human sacrifices at Bohemian Grove.  But, PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE PEAK OIL BEHIND THE CURTAIN.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.

260 comments on DrumBeat: June 9, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version