<UK Agriculture, Organic Farming and Relocalisation The Oil Drum The Forest and the Trees -- the Oil News Imbalance>
<DrumBeat: September 18, 2006 DrumBeat DrumBeat: September 20, 2006>

262 comments on DrumBeat: September 19, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

mr f on September 19, 2006 - 9:20am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
subscribed*

oops, here's a link:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/av/

third one down

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
BrianT on September 19, 2006 - 9:28am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Rogers used the right words. The average person has been conditioned by the MSM so that when they hear "Peak Oil", they think they are hearing "UFO" or "Y2K" or "jump in your backyard bomb shelter the Russkies are coming".It is likely that the term "Peak Oil" is no longer useful in communicating to the layperson the mechanics of oil depletion.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Dragonfly41 on September 19, 2006 - 9:52am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Yes, it's time for a euphemism:

From Wikipedia:

A euphemism is an expression intended by the speaker to be less offensive, disturbing, or troubling to the listener than the word or phrase it replaces, or in the case of doublespeak to make it less troublesome for the speaker.

So, what are some euphemisms for Peak Oil?

Supply-constrained,supply/demand imbalances, etc....

Anymore out there we can use as covert buzzwords?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
alistairC on September 19, 2006 - 9:55am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
"Oil supply crunch point"
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
kalpax on September 19, 2006 - 9:57am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
"Fresh out"?

"Running on empty"?

"Hitting the bottom of the tank"?

Hmmm.... maybe I don't have quite the temprament for the marketing world...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
JN2 on September 19, 2006 - 12:35pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
"Fresh out"?

"Running on empty"?

"Hitting the bottom of the tank"?

Don't you guys get it? The gas gauge is only down to 1/2 full - maybe not even that low yet. We're talking maybe 50% consumed, not 90+%. I prefer the phrase "the end of cheap oil" - and even that remains to be seen...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
mr f on September 19, 2006 - 8:03pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
It's just a metaphor. If it is being applied to the ability to increase production, and the meter is measuring "ability to increase", well, then at that point your rate is zero and then, eh, negative. aka depletion

So in that case your little meter that you have there is not measuring ability-to-increase, rather, it represents reserves. Two different considerations.

Just depends on how you market the metaphor, so to speak. For instance, Richard Heinberg's new book, based on the Rimini Protocol, has a meter showing "less than zero"--which is clearly indicating an ability to increase not an absolute zero. The world is presently around 85mbpd or something like that. I'm pretty sure Heinberg is aware of this given that his job is essentially knowing such mudane yet lurid details. Even at a global 2% conventional oil depletion rate there is obviously oil left, and will be for a very long time... The debate consists of: is there capacity left, and at what price increases, and at what rate of price increases to offset conventional depletion? The biggest question of all is that geological and mathematical point where we've hit highest production crest and begin a dismal decent into the trough of our future. 1970 in the US can be cited as just one example.

This inveigh in the form of "we're not outta gas yet" is appropriate if you're being literalist. But you become an apologist with a snipe at the idea that cheap oil is still around after putting up a straw man with the doubly disengenious tank half empty lament--which, btw, is the same illogical and fatuous argument that people like Greg Pallast and various others make to decry the idea that more is wrong in the US than simply the neocons securing "our interests", a translation for "invading countries".

Everyone should know that something has gone awry. All you have to do is turn on a TV, good thing I don't own one. Alas, there is enough BS in the newspaper--why in the world would I need a TV?

I think I'll make that previous paragraph my signiture on here...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
yashko on September 19, 2006 - 10:02am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I use "oil supply and demand imbalances" or "growing oil demand vs. oil supply constraints." The supply/demand imbalance concept is the camel's nose, and it is easily plugged into a capitalist mindset. After you have talked about price rises and capacity constraints, it is an easy step to "why is it caled a fossil fuel?"
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
brutus on September 19, 2006 - 10:11am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
shit hitting the fan
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
alistairC on September 19, 2006 - 10:30am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
OK, I amend my
"Oil supply crunch point"
to
"Oil supply splat point"
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
solar1 on September 19, 2006 - 2:36pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
All this is kind of like saying:

            "He passed over"         vs

            "He died"

I'll stick to "Peak Oil".  The truth shouldn't be diluted to the point we don't recognize the problem.  

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
dinopello on September 19, 2006 - 10:25am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The emerging energy inconvenience.  You could add 'eternal' in there if you are so inclined.  
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jokuhl on September 19, 2006 - 10:47am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
As much as the 70's one came and went, I don't think that the term 'ENERGY CRISIS' has been destroyed yet.  For the time being, it might be as good to describe a "Looming Energy Crisis"..  I don't think most people are going to tell you there's NO chance that we might get pinched again, even if they don't believe it will be the death-knell for Oil-fuels..
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
reno on September 19, 2006 - 10:53am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Oil depletion works for me!! People seem to understand what you're talking when it comes to depletion of resources..
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
joule on September 19, 2006 - 11:02am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Petroleumly Challenged?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
GliderGuider on September 19, 2006 - 11:17am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I'm using "oil depletion" with very good results.  It gets the point across, and the term is likely to remain unloaded for quite some time because it's value neutral.  Any catchphrase like "Peak Oil" can be turned back on its users in a way that a simple factual description cannot.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
step back on September 19, 2006 - 11:40am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
A euphemism is an expression intended by the speaker to be less offensive, disturbing, or troubling to the listener than the word or phrase it replaces, or in the case of doublespeak to make it less troublesome for the speaker.

What are we going to do about, you know ........,

"That Addicted-to-Oil Thing"?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Keithster100 on September 19, 2006 - 12:52pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Euphemisms? Here are some:

1.World ending crisis #638
2.
BirdFluIranNukesPeakOilWhoopingCoughIslamofascismCommunismTsunamiGlobalWarmingMcDeath
3. Business Opportunity

How about this for a slogan, "Peak Oil is the new Black...Death"

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Dragonfly41 on September 19, 2006 - 1:07pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Excellent contributions, one and all.  Now, do NOT ever use the words "Peak Oil" again because it has been successful "framed" into a nutjob, lunatic theory.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
mikeB on September 19, 2006 - 5:01pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
But what *ssholes you'll look like when you start scurrying for cover under terms like "oil depletion."

Kinda like creationism redubbed as "intelligent design."

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Dragonfly41 on September 19, 2006 - 5:20pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
In reality, I was just poking fun at all "euphemims" you see out there in financial / economic / political rags.  

They can't use the "PO" phrase or the thin veneer will chip away and the lonely little wizard pulling the strings will be revealed.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
odograph on September 20, 2006 - 8:37am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
... successful "framed" into a nutjob, lunatic theory.

Let's all repeat together, "the MSM did that" and create OUR consensual reality.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

262 comments on DrumBeat: September 19, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version