<Our Toughest Foes: Apathy and CynicismThe Oil DrumHow carbon dioxide improves recovery>

47 comments on Public interest, peak oil and global warming

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Leanan on February 12, 2006 - 4:26pm Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
That's quite a leap in Sep. for global warming.  Meteorologists may still be arguing, but it looks like the "wisdom of crowds" has decided global warming is behind the increased hurricanes.  ;-)

And maybe this site won't be around around in six months.  Deffeyes thinks the time for predicting peak oil is over - he says it happened on Dec. 13.  

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
creg on February 12, 2006 - 4:48pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Yeah, but what about the by 2025 back to the stone age , prediction.
http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/current-events.html
I feel a little shocked by the 2025 statement.I remember in his book that he would not go the get guns route .I am also shocked only one response( TOD), YES  Liz, this deserves it's own thread. I have always thought electrictiy is more fragile than most seem to believe(except Duncan of Olduvail Theory). We had our lines replaced lately- they used a lot of energy.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
skylar on February 12, 2006 - 5:20pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Yes, I was also struck by the 2025 comment. It seems oddly morose for the usually jocular Deffeyes.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
reno on February 13, 2006 - 9:35am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Although Deffeyes statement may be a bit on the bold side, one has to wonder just what it will take to wake up the sheeple to peak oil. What catalyst will drive the people to start thinking about their future or more importantly, their childrens future in a world with less oil, alot less oil I think we can all agree.

What I see happening now is a load of propaganda coming from the government, politicians, and oil companies that our future is GREEN and RENEWABLE.. That's the message the sheeple are getting and they believe everything will be OK..  

I for one, didn't even know about peak oil until about may 2005. SO until TSHTF, most people are satisfied to go about their daily lives not thinking about what tomorrow brings..

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
skylar on February 13, 2006 - 3:10pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
But the people who go to his web site are largely the converted.
The sheeple never wander there.
It sounds to me that he has truly become discouraged by his numbers.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
step back on February 13, 2006 - 3:59pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
propaganda coming from the government, politicians, and oil companies that our future is GREEN and RENEWABLE.. That's the message the sheeple are getting and they believe everything will be OK..  

We should not be discouraged by the "sheeple count".

Bottom line is that more people in control of industry and government are waking up and seeing the approaching tsunami.

Hell, "addicted to oil" made it into this year's State of the Union Speech. Never mind the speaker's motives, it was still there. Who would have predicted that 2 years ago?

Even General Motors (GM !) is kind of admitting that Houston we have a problem.

Tom Friedman is talking about energy independence in his editorials.

John Tierney is provacateering about it in his.

You've come a long way baby.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Nate Hagens on February 12, 2006 - 6:00pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Whats interesting here is that Deffeyes defines peak oil as the point when exactly 50% of what Hubbert linearization for the world predicts total Qt to be. He says we crossed that 50% point on December 16, 2005. But others define 'peak Oil' as passing the maximum protracted daily production level - these two points could be vastly different in time - if technology is borrowing from the second half of the distribution, we could pass 50% Qt and keep increasing production for several years - it just means steeper decline rates on the back end. This is what I think is happening in any case. (And if Simmons is right about Ghawar, clearly this will be the case)- In fact we might have passed 50% of what mankind really pulls out many years ago...
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Dave Cohen on February 12, 2006 - 6:28pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I am not of the "Deffeyes" school here. As you said, I would define the peak as the maximum daily production rate (of all liquids). There will be a very long tail. And if 2006 passes and I have not seen an increase over the maximum seen in Spring of 2005, as noted by Stuart in various posts, then I believe that new supply will never offset depletion ever again--though we will probably be in CERA's undulating plateau for a few years with no spare capacity whatsoever. The difference between CERA and me here being about 16 years if 2006 turns out the way I think it will. Already HO has reported early year OPEC declines that may be partially offset by Haradh coming onstream soon. But, it's a waiting game now. How will Russia do this year? Mexico? Will something happen with Iran? Will Nigeria finally fall apart? Will Iraq get even worse? How much will Canada squeeze out of those tar sands? How moody is Hugo?
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
peakearl on February 12, 2006 - 6:46pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
According to the latest IES update, it appears the updated world supply for December may have eclipsed May 2005 by about 100,000 (about 0.012%). A very small margin, and I would not be surprised if EIA has it the other way around. In any event, preliminary estimates from IEA are that Jan fell significantly from December and will again be below May 2005. Might be the "undulating plateau."

http://omrpublic.iea.org/

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
peakearl on February 12, 2006 - 6:49pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Ooops - misplaced a percentage point - make that 0.12%. Same difference.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Engineer-Poet on February 13, 2006 - 11:23am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Note that Deffeyes' "apocalyptic quote" came immediately after this:
The Times reports that solar energy today supplies one percent of US electricity; the hope is to double that to 2 percent by the year 2025.
What he meant is that we're going to have to move a lot faster than the shrinking violets in our government thing we will, or should.

Something like solar Stirling dishes could make the difference.  There are enough 7-11's in Orange county that you could probably power a good fraction of greater LA if you just shaded all their parking lots with them.  Meeting California's peak demand would take a few million of the things, not difficult for a nation which builds millions of vehicles a year.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.