146 comments on Declining net oil exports--a temporary decline or a long term trend?
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.
“It is only through labor and painful effort, by grim energy and resolute courage, that we move on to better things.”
—Theodore Roosevelt
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
- 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?
- Oilwatch Monthly - August 2008
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
If I haven't mentioned it lately, in my opinion Khebab is a certified genius, and he is doing some tremendous work on the net export paper for ASPO-USA.
My usual acknowledgment: We are building on prior work by Simmons & Deffeyes, et al.
I have made some oblique references to some conversations I have had with some "concerned government scientists." One of them told me that you could have heard a pin drop when a group of them thought through the implications of the ELM. In any case, I thought that a couple of recent e-mails were particularly well written, and with his permission, I am posting them below:
Interesting.
I've often wondered whether the USGS scientists bought the party line.
FYI--no comment on whether my guys are at USGS, but that does not detract from his point and your point.
USGS proudly brought to you by ExxonMobil, DaimlerChrysler Corp. the El Paso Energy Foundation, German Coal Mining Association, Edison Electric Institute, Cyprus Minerals Co., Western Fuels Association and Intermountain Rural Electric Association
Just because it is sponsored by the oil industry, doesn't mean that internally is can't know about PO - if PO is rely happening soon, then it would be in the oil industries best interest to find out about, and model the outcomes from, PO. (what they share to other people is another kettle of fish)
I guess my point is that who sponsors a group doesn't mean that certain views can't be held, just that they can't be freely expressed to people outside that group.
I would think that is even worse: to be able to know how bad things are and not be able to tell people.
One of my good college buddies majored in geology, then embarked on a career with the USGS, some 30 years ago. We've kept in touch through the years, getting together now & then. He's published almost 100 papers in his field of expertise. A few years ago, as I was discovering the concept of peak oil & its possible ramifications, I emailed him at work to get his take on the subject(he has always been free to use his work email address to correspond). His curt reply was that some of his colleagues believed in p.o., others were not concerned. I have not heard from him since.
The "I have not heard from him since." was kind of cryptic. How long ago was this? And have you written back since?
Tim
tim, sorry, should have been more clear. we were in the habit of corresponding at least a few times a year up until that exchange. no, i have not written back since, as the tone of his email seemed clear to me ("not interested in discussing this issue further"). several months to a year would not have been unusual to pass, but 3 years is. in the past he has been more than interested & willing to discuss his geology projects and views with me. this just came across to me in two ways: "oh no, my buddy has been caught up in this crackpot idea of peak oil" and/or "this is something i don't want to be caught dead expressing an opinion on"
Then just call him up and see if you can buy him lunch. Couldn't hurt.
It's good to know people are reading this stuff and are concerned. However, if things are as potentially dire as they appear to be, isn't the 'correct' course of action to ditch the 'maintain anonymity for professional reasons' attitude and go public? I mean in times like these, dangerous times, doesn't one have to show a bit of courage and act responsibly and be brave? By 'responsibly' I mean responsible to ones own ethical standards and more importantly responsible to all the people who haven't a clue, who are sleepwalking and being led around by the nose towards the butcher's knife? Worrying about saving ones probably non-existant pension will probably be the least of one worries if the ELM model is as accurate as it seems to be. How long does one wait until starts to speak out? It's a challange and a dilema and up to the individual himself to make that call I suppose. I'm fortunate that I don't have a boss, never had time for them, and I don't need a pension plan, and I've never really had a position of responsibility to worry about losing.
Unfortunately, most that are in a position to "ring the alarm" and act "responsibly" have taken lessons from our current president and VP. They are thinking, "why should I take the fall here if no one else is going to..."
Are you guys kidding? Have you ever worked for a corporation? Ever worked inside a government office? (I'm guessing yes to at least one or more.)
I'll explain it though, to refresh your memory. It's pretty basic. See, how it works is you do your job, you make whoever is above you look good--all the way up, and keep your mouth shut. That's why these corporations (and even government departments) have what are known to some as a "Public Relations" contingent. If it can't be put on TV and spun, it does not exist. If you abide, you get a promotion.
If you don't abide by these descriptors, you're fucking canned. In a nutshell that's how it works. There are clear ideological boundaries. Kiazan Moneypenny (the strangest goddamn name ever) isn't going to publicly disclose that the State Dept. and Blackwater are full of shit. You'd have to be a mad man. Ditto the Pentagon. Behind closed doors while filthy drunk, fine. Anonymous sources spilling a tidbit here or there, okay. Trying to finagle your way out of a sinking ship via "whistleblowing", great. But free, open speech within corporations and the government? Hahahahah...
I mean, that's why we have contracts (and sockpuppets).
CERA, USGS and EIA are not going to implore us to take mitigation steps. They will merely observe the past with a twinkle in their eye, and optimistic view of the future. Anything else is political suicide. Toe the party-line. Which is:
Nothing to see here...
It has nothing specifically to do with the current administration. Things were this way under Cigar Clinton, Bushy One, Reaganmeister, PB&J Carter, Lucky Ford, Tricky Dick, ad infinitum all the way back to the Standard Oil racket (although, T.R. tried to save face, and was able to accomplish much more, relatively, than the sockpuppets in power over recent history.) The more things change, the more they stay the same. Cliché rules the day.
Next quarter looks good.
Haaa....sad, but true...I've worked in both government and private corporations. My current company just went through some workshops where they identified types of people in the workplace as Loyalists, Passive Terrorists, or Active Terrorists.
They were using these labels to tell if you were part of the Solution or part of the Problem. Loyalists work together to come to positive results. Terrorists work to sink other people to make themselves look better. All the while listening to this workshop, I kept thinking, "My God...why the hell are we using these labels?"
So what you say is true, if you are a "Yes Man/Woman" and act positively all the time, you will go far in corporations. If you rock the boat and criticize people or ideas, you will eventually be forced out.
Well, now your invocation makes sense. Looks like your company really did take a line from this Admin's speech writers. You're either with us or against us. Which actually makes sense, corporate-wise.
This scenario sounds like something out of The Office.
Passive Terrorists? What, is that like a lazy terrorist who just colors his or her coloring books all day long while letting the phone ring? Meanwhile the Active Terrorists are cutting RJ-45 cables, hax0ring into company databases, uploading them to the Pirate Bay, and exposing the pron on the CEO's computer?
Ya...I was thinking The Office as well...life imitating art?
Passive Terrorists...saying crap behind people's backs instead of provoking outright fistfights over the coffee machine.
"It has nothing specifically to do with the current administration."
My Dad worked for the government for many years Starting when HST was POTUS and ending when Bush one was in office. He told me that that the government lies 2/3rd of the time. He said that the government lies when it is to their advantage, that is when the truth would be a problem, and when it does not natter, The govt lies when there is no advantage or disadvantage for or against, in order to keep their activities obtuse and to keep the populace confused. The government only tells the truth when it is to its distinct advantage.
That is what the govt and the oil industry are doing regarding energy
Hi Jeffrey,
Thanks, esp. for being in contact w. concerned scientists, and for sharing the comments.
re: "Then everyone wins."
Do the people you're in contact with ever talk about mitigation paths or other actions (of any sort)?
re: "...believe it is important to maintain anonymity for professional reasons."
Do they have any opinions about what actions others should take? Or what actions should be taken by scientists who perhaps are in a better position WRT anonymity?
Regarding our post-peak future, the Matt Savinar and Alan Drake are pretty much polar opposites. Matt is scouting out places to live upwind from probable fallout zones, while Alan is pushing electrification of transportation (EOT), while trying to make a go of it in New Orleans.
One of the scientists I talked to is deeply concerned that Matt may be more correct that Alan.
Nevertheless, I suspect, but do not for sure, that they would strongly support EOT.
WT: IMHO, both Matt and Alan are correct. Alan is right on target for the future of Germany, Japan, Sweden, France, etc. Matt is closer for large parts of the USA- I think parts of the USA will do OK. IMO, in many ways the USA circa 2037 will look like Mexico circa 2007 (many areas in Mexico are still great places to live).
Hi Jeffrey,
Thanks for responding. I'm curious, if you do get a chance to talk and/or share again...Do they ever talk about a coordinated plan, for eg. immediate conservation, Alan's plan, and some policies that favor retrofits (ag policy that recognizes "peak" and promotes conversion to organic, build-out of wind/solar, etc. - just examples)- i.e., something that actually addresses things in a comprehensive way? It seems like we need all of this (and more) ASAP.
Also, do they see any role for "concerned scientists" and/or the public in terms of policies or any other kind of action?
Probably not under the current administration, would be my guess.
Westexas, I am just curious about one thing. Why does khebab (Samuel Foucher) post under his real name at energybulletin.net but not here at TOD?