166 comments on Peak Oil Update - June 2007: Production Forecasts and EIA Oil Production Numbers
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
166 comments on Peak Oil Update - June 2007: Production Forecasts and EIA Oil Production Numbers
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
The contents below are paid advertisements. Their appearance does not imply an endorsement by The Oil Drum.
“We have only two modes—complacency and panic.”
—James R. Schlesinger, the first energy secretary, in 1977, on the country's approach to energy
Search The Oil Drum with Google
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Technician: Super G
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Summer Streets a Success!
- Plan for Hydro-Fracture Drilling for Unconventional Natural Gas in Upstate New York
- Enjoying Life Close to Home: Fun Streets
TOD:Europe
- Russian gas and European energy security - a reprise
- Russia: There Is Life After Peak Oil
- Should EROEI be the most important criterion our society uses to decide how it meets its energy needs?
TOD:Canada
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
- Weekend Energy Listening: Wind Power with Paul Gipe
TOD:ANZ
Peak Oil Primers
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- Ecological Economics
- David Strahan
- Econbrowser
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- Environmental Economics
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Organizations
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.






GAIA Host Collective
This is mostly true except for the part that it was "premature", especially with respect to climate change.
The underlying cause for concern always was and still is that of run-away Climate Change. GW concerns really started in the 1980's. Twenty years later we are undergoing an anthropogenically enhanced abrupt and non-linear (unpredictable) climate change -- one that for all practical intents and purposes will likely be very soon humanly irreversible.
Was it really "premature" to warn of this then?
According to James Hanson, from an adaptation of a talk delivered in February, and printed in The Nation (May 7.2007 issue):
"There's a huge gap between what is understood about global warming by the relevant scientific community and what is known about global warming by those who need to know: the public and policy-makers. We've had, in the past thirty years, one degree Fahrenheit of global warming. But there's another one degree Fahrenheit in the pipeline due to gases that are already in the atmosphere. And there's another one degree Fahrenheit in the pipeline because of the energy infrastructure now in place--for example, power plants and vehicles that we're not going to take off the road even if we decide that we're going to address this problem.
"The Energy Department says that we're going to continue to put more and more CO2 in the atmosphere each year -- not just additional CO2 but more than we put in the year before. If we do follow that path, even for another ten years, it guarantees that we will have dramatic climate changes that produce what I would call a different planet -- one without sea ice in the Arctic; with worldwide, repeated coastal tragedies associated with storms and a continuously rising sea level; and with regional disruptions due to freshwater shortages and shifting climatic zones."
Had we thought to address this as a serious concern, worthy of the precautionary principle, even 15 years ago we wouldn't be faced with the dire problem we are today as Hanson (among many, many other scientists) now sees coming no matter what we do. For civilization as we know it it will likely prove to be an unstoppable disaster.
Once set in motion climate change is a beast and will not readily relent to our late and still haphazard efforts to mitigate it. The lesson is a tragic one, in that those who were accused of "crying wolf" back were not at all premature with such an intractable threat.
Instead of learning our lesson, today's PO promoters are in the same boat that CC theorists were in 20 years ago. There is another "freight train coming down the tracks", which according to the Hirsch Report (along with many, many other thinking people, like ourselves):
"The peaking of world oil production presents the U.S. and the world with an unprecedented risk management problem. As peaking is approached, liquid fuel prices and price volatility will increase dramatically, and, without timely mitigation, the economic, social, and political costs will be unprecedented. Viable mitigation options exist on both the supply and demand sides, but to have substantial impact, they must be initiated more than a decade in advance of peaking." {my emphases}
Among their quoted conclusions:
• World oil peaking is going to happen, and will likely be abrupt.
• Oil peaking will adversely affect global economies, particularly those most dependent on oil.
• Oil peaking presents a unique challenge (“it will be abrupt and revolutionary”).
• The problem is liquid fuels (growth in demand mainly from transportation sector).
• Mitigation efforts will require substantial time.
• 20 years is required to transition without substantial impacts
• A 10 year rush transition with moderate impacts is possible with extraordinary efforts from governments, industry, and consumers
• Late initiation of mitigation may result in severe consequences.
Gee, this all sounds awfully familiar.
By the time we do wake up to recognizing PO for what it is, like CC, it will be too late to do much to mitigate the worst of its effects upon civilization as we know it.
By my way of reckoning, this new crying wolf "research project" is only interesting in the same way that any of us cares to give studied witness to the progression of our ultimate demise. For myself and civilization as I know it, I've grown weary of this new yet same old drama.
Of course it ain't over til its over, but the plot is essentially the same and I see no reason to believe the outcome won't be any different than the CC one already set in motion.
It really is a once in a long historical lifetime we are stuck in, and all I can do is sit back comfortably while preparing as best I can to enjoy the show while it lasts. Tragically, so it goes...
Why do some of you seem to have this interminable need to refer everything back to climate change or, amazingly enough, 9/11 theories?
For goodness sake, show some respect!
Khebab has spent a hell of a lot of time putting together a really good, professional post on peak oil and you precious ponies what to hijack the thread to talk about your pet subjects.
If you want to spout about those sorts of things, there are plenty of other forums to do it in (including the daily drum).
Please, stop polluting the research and analysis threads with this sort of stuff.
I absolutely agree concerning the 9/11 stuff, but you must know the climate change story started in scientific circles and has always been run by professionals. Any indication to the otherwise has always been, and still is, industry disinformation.
Want to _really_ know about climate change? Read the scientific literature. There is no substitute.
ciao,
Bruce
Critical_Mind, I hope you weren't referring to me. I was simply offering my opinion, not trying to be disrespectful of Khebab (who's work I not only respect, but thoroughly appreciate.)
I was just responding to a comment... I thought that's what the comment section was for. Comments and discussion. I hate to be smug, but I think I'm right (like most people).
Sometimes when someone responds to a comment I've posted I feel the need to engage the person's comment further so as to expound my analysis and/or position. And I think I have done so, now let my text speak for itself.
There is a disconcerting tendency for people that accept peak oil being a reality to concurrently hold unfounded conspiratorial beliefs about 9/11.
This is a problem for the TOD community, and the "movement" as a whole as it discredits much of the hard work that you are imploring us to respect. I humbly believe it is important for anyone who takes peak oil seriously to vocally distance themselves from the the so-called "theories" of the 9/11 truth meme. It needs to be stated that 9/11 may have been taken advantage of (to invade Iraq) on dubious premises, but that does not in any way somehow implicate Dick Cheney in giving Mr. Atta the "go" command (and don't ask my opinion of Cheney...) It needs to be stated in somewhat arguably-important venues that this is uncalled for, and damages not only the Left, but peak oil awareness as well. A quick google of "peakoil" and "9/11" will come up with some pretty discrediting stuff and is a superficial and easy (yet effective) way for propagandists to filter and diminish *critical* thought when it comes to "energy and our future", as the TOD masthead says.
I do preemptively apologize for adding yet even more clutter, but this is the goddamn internet--give me a break!
In my opinion, 9/11 is not an appropriate topic for this blog but climate change is because climate change is intimately tied to fossil fuels.
Additionally, I didn't see where Professor Goose made you a moderator of TOD. Oh he didn't? Then why are you worrying your head about it? The editors and contributors of TOD will police it (or not) as they see fit.
Ghawar Is Dying
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Dr. Albert Bartlett
Grey: Neither topic is appropriate here IMO but most 9/11 bloggers do specifically relate the events to fossil fuel depletion (necessitating Iraq oil grab).
I believe that you are flatly incorrect about climate change as there have been many main articles on TOD itself in the past on that very topic but none, ever, about 9/11 conspiracy theories. If Professor Goose has allowed articles about climate change here and if those articles have been posted (both of which are true) then discussion of climate change is part of this blog.
Ghawar Is Dying
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Dr. Albert Bartlett