Disagree. We will never have a united front until peak oil is years in the rear view mirror. By then, it may be too late to do anything about it.

We have competing theories now. Eventually, we will know which one is right. That is how it should be, IMO.

I wouldn't worry about being considered crackpots. We already have a lot more prominent peak oilers who are more extreme than Westexas or Stuart will ever be.

Your comments remind me of the scientists who wanted Stephen Jay Gould to shut up about punctuated equilibrium. They argued that it was better to present a united front against the creationists "just for now." Um, no. That's not how science works.

Some people who post here feel they are part of a community, or feel a responsibility towards creating credible policies. Reasonable people, with reasonable goals.

Others of us don't care about credibility in this sense at all. It was blindingly clear ca 1977 what the future would look like in terms of oil, and whether that future was in 10 years or 30 years wasn't exactly the important point - the important point was to prepare.

If you live in America, look around and tell me what you see in the way of preparation for peak oil since 1977. So much for credible policies following reasonable discussion.

When peak oil arrives, and in my view, it has, it likely won't lead to Americans suddenly questioning how they have lived for the last 30 years. But it will force them to change how they live, whether they desire it or not.

One of the big background questions here is, how will America deal with reality? TOD is pretty America-centric, which allows for a fine glimpse into something a lot of non-Americans just can't grasp - why Americans have built an entire infrastructure over the last couple of generations which doesn't allow people to walk, for example, is something Germans just can't comprehend.

At this point, whether peak is now or in 3-5 years (a solid consensus estimate by most reasonable measures) really doesn't matter that much to America's immediate future.

Chrisale, thanks for the great post. But I must disagree with you when it comes to making pronouncements about peak oil. Suppose Matt Simmons had this same attitude concerning his prediction that Saudi oil production is nearing its twilight? Suppose he had been concerned about being called "Chicken Little?"

At any rate, as I have stated time and time again, the exact month that production peaks is not important. What is important is the current plateau that we now find ourselves on. We have been on that plateau for about two years. That IS important. During that two years every nation tried to ramp up production. Every old field in every nation is now being milked for all its worth but we still remain on the plateau.

We have been talking about these "massive technological advancements" as you put it for almost thirty years. Catton, in 1980, called them superstraws. They suck the oil out a lot faster but do not put more oil in the ground. What Saudi Arabia and other nations now do with horizontal christmas tree wells Texas did years ago by sinking a vertical well every few feet. At any rate, all this "new technology" have already done its thing, getting us to where they are. We have already witnessed their contribution.

As for affecting change. You are dreaming. The world will change when events force change, not when people make logical arguments that change is needed. Reason is a pitifully impotent tool when it comes to changing people's behavior.

It is impossible to reason a man out of something he has not been reasoned into. When people have acquired their beliefs on an emotional level they cannot be persuaded out of them on a rational level, no matter how strong the proof or the logic behind it. People will hold onto their emotional beliefs and twist the facts to meet their version of reality.
- Sidney J. Harris

Ron Patterson

We are in this together.. if we, the people who are the most acutely aware of this problem, can't collaborate and show a united, and fact-based approach, then there is no hope for us to affect change anywhere in the "real".

I strongly suspect that nothing we do will have any material impact on public policy, which is why I have increasingly described the 2005/2010 debate as roughly akin to a couple of engineers debating how long it will take for the Titanic to sink.

IMO, it is much later than most of us think, and I think that most Americans have two choices: (1) Dramatically reduce your consumption now, while you can do it voluntarily, or (2) You will be forced to do it later, much like the forced conservation we have seen in Africa.

I do think that the New York Times article ("Oil Innovations Pump New Life Into Old Wells") is another example of the "Iron Triangle" striking back (see explanation at the end).

I suspect that the recent flood of attacks on the near term Peak Oil position and on Peak Oil in general have a lot to do with the release of the EIA data showing a continued decline for all of 2006, as predicted by the HL models, in world and Saudi crude oil production--while oil prices have consistently been about two-thirds higher than in the 20 months prior to 5/05.

Again, all I can advise people to do is to ELP, i.e., "Cut they spending and get thee to the non-discretionary side of the economy."

Iron Triangle:

I I think that we are seeing an "Iron Triangle" of sorts defending the status quo concept of ever expanding energy supplies: (1) most housing, auto, financing and related companies; (2) Most MSM companies that are selling advertising to Group #1 and (3) some major oil companies, major oil exporters and energy analysts that are working for the major oil companies and exporters.

The housing/auto/finance group wants to keep selling and financing large homes and SUV's.

The MSM wants to keep selling advertising to the housing/auto group.

In my opinion, some major oil companies are afraid of punitive taxation, and some exporters are afraid of military takeovers. This group of oil companies, exporters and their analysts provide the intellectual ammunition for the other two groups, i.e., promising trillions and trillions of barrels of conventional and nonconventional oil reserves.

IMO peak oil is similar to the Christian idea of the second coming of Christ, only with a lot more evidence. Christianity has divided itself over and over again and yet has as much or more influence than ever. It has predicted the second coming for over 2000 years and been wrong for 2000 years with little, if any, reduction in its credibility. Less than 5 percent of Americans in one poll I saw think than an atheist, which I am, should be President of the United States. Most Americans call themselves Christians. Being wrong or even consistently wrong has no effect on your credibility in the average person's thinking. People believe what they want to believe largely irregardless of the facts.

Human beings suffer bounded rationality. They have a limited ability to understand their world, and a pretty spotty record in preparing for their future.

But at the same time we have no shortage of fears, monsters in the closet. Each of these do attract a following: economic collapse, superquakes, pandemics, peak oil ...

I think the thing to live with is that while each of these is a real risk, we experience very emotional responses to them. We feel the fear more than we know the mathematical risk. This November '06 Time Magazine article hit all the high points on that.

So if you focus on one thing, one fear, or one outcome in all that ... you might be a "crackpot or chicken-little."

If you take the more reasonable course that life has risk, but that there are moderate steps we can make to safe and happy life ... you might be sane.

The whole question of the near term, medium term and long term peak really revolves around Saudi Arabia, and in effect, the Ghawar Field.

I strongly advise everyone to read the series of posts that Down Under and others made on Saudi Arabia yesterday on the 3/4/07 Drumbeat, up near the top.

The continuing irony of all the attacks on the HL method is that world and Saudi crude production are both declining, as predicted by the HL models.

And the hard, cold fact is that world oil prices have been bid up to a level about two-thirds higher than in the 20 months prior to 5/05, and the inflection point on this price increase was May, 2005.

Has the US--so far--been well supplied with petroleum products? Yes.

That has not been true for regions like Africa, which have faced forced conservation, because they could not afford to buy petroleum, in effect, because richer nations outbid them. But forced conservation is moving up the food chain.

How do we address the people that would call us crackpots or chicken-littles?

Mmmmmm. . . I think anybody who truly recognizes the ramifications this will have on each of us as individuals simply does not care about being viewed as a "crackpot."

How do we address the people that would call us crackpots or chicken-littles?

Mmmmmm. . . I think anybody who truly recognizes the ramifications this will have on each of us as individuals simply does not care about being viewed as a "crackpot."