76 comments on National Petroleum Council Report Based on API Call and Report Review
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
76 comments on National Petroleum Council Report Based on API Call and Report Review
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
- Thanksgiving Open Campfire Thread
- How Relocalization Worked
- How to Set Up and Run a Bicycle Repair Company
TOD:Europe
- Unique Times -- and the Future
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Friday 27th November 2009
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
TOD:Net Energy
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
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“Considering the many productive uses of petroleum, burning it for fuel is like burning a Picasso for heat.”
—Big Oil Executive
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- 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
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
synchroGENized and Kheris,
Thank you for your comments. If I may ask, how did you discover this web site? Did it come to you or did you come to it? If you found it via one of the referral sites like reddit or digg then I stand corrected. If you came to it through a search engine or another energy blog such as WSJ's energy roundup or R-Squared, then I would argue that my point stands. My guess, and I could be wrong, is that trying to generate traffic by getting high rankings on the referral sites is not going to be very effective. A far better strategy, in my opinion, is to get noticed, referenced, and summarized by the major media outlets with strong online presence. One of the best things that has happened to this site was to get listed by WSJ's energy roundup.
One more thing. When I mentioned that the target audience for this site is probably not "the average person wondering why gasoline is so expensive," I didn't mean to imply that the average person is not smart enough to understand this stuff. I meant that the contributors, as far as I know, are not trained journalists and are probably not going to do as good a job communicating their message as trained journalists. The articles here are both too long and too technical. To get this material into the "general interest" arena, I think the site needs to attract top quality writers who are good at sourcing highly complex material and presenting it in a concise, easy-to-understand format.
Calorie,
I'll second that.
A lot of readers here at TOD are scientists, engineers, computer wizards, etc.
It doesn't blow them away when someone posts a chemical formula
CH3-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH3
or a math equation
y= A*e^-(kt)
But think about your average swim coach.
This stuff may sound like a lot of hooey.
Maybe we need a TOD-Lite site?
Not really. They can just jump in and sink or swim :^)
Just point 'em to the Tech Talk link on the main page and give 'em the laws of thermodynamics:
That, and children are much faster learners than adults ...
Thanks DIYer. Those Tech Talks in the early days of TOD were really educational. Note how few comments there were back in '05.
I read Kunstler's book The Long Emergency, that's what got me started. I do believe he mentioned TOD.