The IEA publish a number of scenarios, I suspect the 122 Mb figure is from the High Growth scenario.

Don't know where they got that (and I looked) but I suspect it's another outdated B.S. estimate by IEA forecasting a "50% growth in demand by 2015" or some such nonsense.

This falls in line nicely with item #877 from the November newsletter from ASPO-Ireland (Campbell), which addressed the "Appalling Ignorance by the British Government" over peak oil. Apparently they are still referencing a 2005 IEA report asserting that supply will continue to meet demand...even after IEA has admitted in its 2007 report that supply will likely not meet demand. Campbell suggests that rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead, this is in fact a "doctrinaire flat-earth ignorance" on the part of the British government.

--C
Energy consultant, writer, blogger www.getreallist.com

They are really hard to find but the BBC does have reports on PO

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3623549.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4077802.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/drivenbyoil/pip/krpen/

BBC are somewhat conservative, but they are willing to entertain new ideas. They ran a piece by John Feeney on population in their Green Room section. I think the BBC have PO bubbling under the surface, and are waiting for official confirmation before making it headline news. Unfortunately Fatih Birol explicitly said that this is not Peak Oil.

David Strahan author of Last Oil Shock is a former BBC journalist. I guess he would have a better chance than most of persuading them to make PO a headline topic.

Fatih Birol appears to the critical cork in the bottle though. Birol is good at spin though, he says "there is sufficient oil, if necessary investments are made". The headline writers take the first part and ignore the if. He should say "we will run short of oil, unless sufficient investment is made" which would have proper impact.

The BBC had a report on Newsnight yesterday - I didn't see it but the summary is here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/11/wednesday_7_november_2007.html

On BBC Five Live I heard an interview with Ray McCormack who is one of the directors behind a new documentary about "the oil crash" called "A Crude Awakening".

It was in their chirpy and cheerly slot called "wake up to money". However, this morning they had difficulty being cheerful and optimistic as all the market numbers were so disturbing. The financial journalists just don't understand the true extent or consequences of the US financial meltdown, but that's another story!

Anyway, for the first time I heard them mention "Peak Oil Theory". An historic moment! For them Peak Oil is a strangely confusing concept. Well, as they said to Ray McCormack, we not going to run out of oil tomorrow are we? No, that's not what it means, it means were are going to start running out of oil. Oil production will have reached a peak. It will then start to decline, slowly, but inexorably.

One of the journalists remembered the early seventies when he was a kid, and oil prices rose dramatically, and people said we were being squeezed, what's the difference now? McCormack replied that the Arab oil embargo was political, whereas this time it's different. We are entering an era of scarcity.

But there's there's Canada! Canada has an area the size of Florida and five hundred feet thick which is full of oil! McCormack replied gently that this was mainly tar mixed with sand, not oil, and we'd probably only extract a maximum of three million barrels a day from Alberta, and we're currently consuming 85 million barrels a day, which is a huge ammount.

The two journalists seemed rather disconserted by his answers, as well they should be, once one begins to examine and think about the consequences of Peak Oil one's perceptions change.

Finally one of them said, and what I want to know is, what happens when the oil does run out, do we go back to living like cave men? I hope not, McCormack replied in his calm, irish voice.

Obviously is good that this subject is finally pushing it's way into the MSM, only the above interview does illustrate the level of ignorance and the tremendous task of re-education that's going to be necessary. I think Peak Oil is going to develope into a very "political" question, because it has the potential to undermine our belief in the ability of the "free market" to provide for our longterm well-being.

Cheep is spelt 'cheap'

Richard C

Welcome Bill.

Most of the posters here at The Oil Drum have spent a few years understanding the concepts surrounding oil production and depletion. Many are engineers or scientists and well versed in the scientific method.

Why don't you spend some time understanding the data supporting the peak oil theory and oil production? Use the FAQ links at top of the main Oil Drum site. Read a book on the topic. I recommend Deffeyes' "Hubbert's Peak" or his "Beyond Oil".

When you have brushed up on the concepts, download the data sets for yourself and try modeling them. There is nothing like trying to duplicate an experiment for ascertaining the truth, is there?

If, at the end of that effort, you feel the theory of peak oil is unfounded, please do come back with a detailed critique backed by data and logic. You would then find a warm welcome. Such critiques are why this site exists.

Best of luck in your search for the truth.

Jon Freise
Analyze Not Fantasize -D. Meadows

If you knew Carbon was the most common mass on earth would you keep buying diamonds? Google that.

I don't know what your point is, but does it matter that carbon is not the most common element by mass? It doesn't even make the top 10.

Troll: someone who intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an on-line community such as an on-line discussion forum or group with the intention of baiting users into an argumentative response.

B: If TOD is a CIA site, I agree that it is top-notch. In fact, if those guys have sharpened up their act that much, maybe I will look for a spot at the company. If you can't beat them, join them.

'Looking forward to being banded for my opposing view'

Having followed this site for short while now I, for one, welcome a dissenting voice.

But rather than claiming that the Peak Oil theory is bullsh*te and all here are CIA spooks could express your reasoning?

Peak Oil is more than a hypothesis, because it makes testable predictions. One takes the known data ( yes there are also unknowns ) and extrapolates. I consider statements made by people much more knowledgable than me and then consider the available information and their provenance.

For example; Peak Oil - Yes, Anthropomorphic Climate Change - No.

There will always be oil, for those that can afford to pay for it; the super rich, big companies and gummints. In the UK a litre of petrol is now £1.02, approx £4.64 a gallon. What would the economy look like when a gallon is £10 or £20 or £100?

My understanding so far is this; Global Peak Oil occurred in 2006/2007, supply will continue until 2010 at roughly 85M barrels per day, output will decline at around 4% per year thereafter, price will tend to follow a wobbly trend ever upwards. Poorer countries are already feeling the effect of higher oil prices. The economic effects will slowly ripple out, combined with other random events and human nature the situation would be ... difficult.

I am not an advocate for the Precautionary Principle ( which in its original form states: You might as well believe in God, for if He exists He will be pleased, if you disbelieve and He exists you will go to hell forever, if He doesnt exist after all, what harm is there living a virtuous life?) but I would feel foolish having taken no mitigating action and there were indeed severe economic problems.

Fare thee well sir.

Its not our abilities that define us, but our choices.
Albus Dumbledore.

If the CIA is paying, please tell me where to send in my invoice.I could be much better at keeping people scared and unfocused with a nice expense account!
(sarcanol alert)

I guess that fear of the unknown that makes certain numbers significant, a numerology projected onto the peak. $8 a gallon would not resonate with Americans very much, but $100 a barrel does and $5 a gallon will with the Americans.
The psychology is obviously the interesting thing, Brittish prices are twice that of the US without causing a collapse-although I haven't been over lately,are you living in caves yet?

Bgardner

I hope exposing TOD made you feel like a big bad brave man. I mean coming on to a CIA site and speaking truth to power like that? Yep, you the man now!!!

It's a shame that by the time you read this there will be some gray aliens jamming instruments far - and I do mean FAR - up you ass. That'll teach you to a thing or two about sticking your nose where it doesn't belong.

Hi Bill,

I like the part about diamonds and carbon (despite the inaccuracy, there may be a point there.)

re: "...Except for..."

Well, I suppose it's possible to grow crops. But then how do you transport them to the other 6.7Billion of us?

re: "Looking forward to..."

What is your idea for helping people get "un-scared" and "focused"?

What is your plan for addressing the ills you mention?

Noutram: Supposedly the ave American family drives approx 65000 km a year. Try that and see if $7.50 gas stretches the budget somewhat.

I remember reading dozens of similar comments in 2001 at the time of the refinery blockades. The hauliers will not go broke short term because they ALL face the same increases and will be able to force them through to their customers. In fact the 2001 protests were because the UK hauliers were facing higher prices than the rest of Europe, and so were losing out to overseas competition,

Long term, of course, we are going to see demand destruction. That will inevitably include hauliers, but we are not there yet.

Hey Adam, nice of you to drop in.

I agree that oil issues are increasingly entering the mainstream, its a big issue, how could it stay out?

I think when people say "mainstream" they mean headline evening news, with some serious analysis of what can be done about it, i.e. reaching the guy on the Clapham omnibus (does that metaphor still work?)

For example, the BBC has a lot of stuff, you could call it almost a campaign, on Global Warming issues. It's easy to find from the front page. Some oil supply is stuff is there but much harder to find.

What I would like to know is what sort of editorial decisions go into making GW a prominent feature, and what events would have to happen before oil supply would be given similar prominence?

Supply below ground is abundant. The world's proven reserves are now at 1.4 trillion barrels, up 12% in the past 10 years.

Anybody that uses this to refute the high cost of oil, or peak oil, doesn't understand what pricing and peaking is about.

For instance, Peak Oil is about flow rates - the 'size of the tap', not the 'size of the barrel'.

Most of the other reasons given above for the price to fall are also very weak or completely spurious.

The reality is, nobody knows what price the future will bring!

Xeroid.

Macque: #9 is just plain silly and clearly exhibits why even the WSJ is almost always full of crap when discussing economics. Yes the dollar is down less than the oil price has risen since Aug 22- SURPRISE! Other fiat currencies are also being devalued at a rapid clip (just not as fast as the greenback). In fact, the dollar could hold its relative value against e.g. the Euro and this fact alone would tell you nothing about increased money supply able to chase diminishing oil supplies.

Hi macequechoux,

Just a quick comment to add to the others. Someone showed me this article, and it had so many misleading parts, I ran out of time to address them all. My friend, upon seeing that I could answer i.e., (that there were replies to be had), quickly became overwhelmed. And I can empathize with that...

One "red flag" that gives a sign one needs to look more closely and question, is the phrase "at current rates of consumption" - or "at current rates" (I'm recalling from inexact memory.) The phrase "at current rates", is usually part of the argument "There's plenty and it will last a long time."

Holding the world to "current rates" might help, however, anyone who uses that tricky little phrase as part of a description of the situation is perhaps unintentionally uninformed, or is deliberately misinforming others.