...given the impact on production from financial turmoil:...

Hm, this is where I get a little confused. How does one distinguish "natural" (geological) decline from economically induced decline? It's probably hard to do, but it seems to me to be a distinction worth keeping (and making). I guess the most vivid example was the SU when an economically induced peak and decline preceded a later geological peak that is only occurring about now (do I have that right?)

Dryki, I've posted a few times recently: Colin Campbell is still talking of an all liquids average decline rate of less than 1.7% (ie 1.35 Mbpd) from 82 Mbpd in 2010 to 55 Mbpd in 2030. Is Colin wrong?

DOE is all about supporting the fossil fuel industry. Only token funding goes to other topics.

The only way to get funding out of NSF is to frame oil depletion as an opportunity to study interactions between humans and the environment. A group of TODers could in theory apply to the NSF coupled human natural systems program (the name may have changed a little) if you could frame basic questions about processes driving the current trajectory (and you had a critical mass of PI's at research universities). This program is supposed to target big environmental problems that require a better understanding of system dynamics underlying our inability to break the cycle of env. degradation/species extinction/resource depletion etc.

The CSIRO Future Fuels Forum has a range of possible future fuel costs, it was only the rapid decline in oil and SLOW TECHNOLOGICAL response that would dramatically impact on household budgets.

Incorrect. Read what the report says about the range of peak oil scenarios:

... if there is a near-term peak in international oil production resulting in declining future oil supplies, petrol prices could increase to between A$2 and as much as A$8 per litre by 2018.

Australia is more vulnerable to changing market circumstances than some other countries due to its relatively high vehicle use, the relatively high fuel consumption by vehicles in its fleet, its 97 per cent reliance on oil-based fuels for transport and declining domestic reserves of conventional oil.

In the event of a decline in international oil supplies technology alone will not be sufficient to meet the fuel supply gap. Reduced travel across freight and passenger transport will be necessary. If international oil supply declines slowly then modest reduction in travel of less than five per cent is sufficient. However, if reduction in oil supply is rapid and alternative fuel vehicles are slow to become available then passenger and freight travel may be reduced by up to 40 per cent. Reduction in travel of this magnitude can be expected to have significant social and economic impacts, but these were not quantified in this study. Literature, however, indicates at least a three per cent decrease in GDP. Transport intensive activities such as tourism and mining would be most vulnerable. Early action to accelerate the availability of non-oil based alternative fuels and less fuel intensive modes of travel is key in avoiding impacts in the high end of this range.

The choices Australians make about the size of their vehicle, how much they need to travel and in what mode (e.g. public versus private passenger transport) are likely to be equally as important as the fuel and technology choices that they make in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and their vulnerability to the impacts of higher prices for oil products. This is important because of the uncertainty that still remains over which future technologies and fuels will proceed to be commercially available at reasonable cost. The modelling projected that a greater shift toward public transport and lighter vehicles, and increased use of rail and sea freight could reduce kilometres travelled by 30 per cent and greenhouse gas emissions by 17 per cent.

To put this into context, Australian oil production is already declining, we are already 50% import dependent, and based on official forecasts we will be 75% import dependent by 2015. World oil production will likely begin to decline in the 2010-2012 timeframe, at rates anywhere between 4% p/a and 9% p/a. In addition to that is the problem of (already) declining net exports. And in addition to that is an increased likelihood of real oil shocks, i.e. sudden declines in production due to wars, natural disasters and the like. Given all this, a steady 5% p/a decrease in oil availability for Australia is a delusion.

In the meantime, there are no clear price signals to trigger rapid introduction of EVs. Oil prices here on the bumpy plateau are highly volatile, as predicted by Campbell/Laharrere some time ago. EVs don’t make economic sense for the average consumer and won’t for some time.

Finally, a few words on the literature indicating "at least a three per cent decrease in GDP." This is highly conservative to say the least. The "literature" indicates a correlation between GDP growth and oil consumption growth of 1:1, in order of magnitude. So, a permanent decline in oil availability of, say, 5% p/a would more realistically be accompanied by a permanent decline in GDP in the order of 5% p/a, in an era where personal debt is at an all time historical high. The real challenge, in the face of this, is to keep people employed so that they can keep food on their table and a roof over their heads, not try and keep shiny new cars in their driveways.

From 1972 to 1980 oil prices increased ten fold, and there was a reduction in new car sales. By 1990, vehicle fuel efficiency had improved by 50%.

I’m not sure where you got your data from, but it is incorrect. Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics indicates that, since 1963, average passenger vehicle fuel efficiency has varied between 11.3 l/100km and 12.6 l/100km. Average passenger vehicle fuel efficiency today is almost identical to what it was in 1963.

Mass transit can help but it cannot be expanded to replace private transport within a decade.

Mass transit will never replace private transport, but it can have a much bigger impact at reducing our oil dependence more quickly, more affordably and at greater benefit to the local economy than focusing on cars. The public transport network here in South East Queensland could realistically be expanded to double, triple or even quadruple its present capacity, with existing technology, based on existing plans, at a fraction of the cost of introducing EVs and expanding the road network, within four to five years.

South East Queensland has a functioning rail network which is already in the process of being significantly upgraded . Further expansions and preserved transport corridors are identified in the South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan and Program. In addition to these the recent Western Brisbane Transport Network Investigation includes an option to upgrade the Ipswich to CBD rail line to a high frequency service with a capacity of 20,000 passengers per hour; a new rail corridor has been identified between Ipswich and Springfield; and the Ipswich city centre is being developed into a regional transport and employment hub (due largely to the efforts of Rachel Nolan, co-author of the McNamara Report).

Demand for public transport in Brisbane is already exceeding supply. In the last four years TransLink (the integrated PT network) patronage has increased by 40 per cent, with buses and trains already overcrowded. Brisbane’s fleet of CNG powered buses are locally assembled and the metropolitan rail fleet (not to mention Perth’s fleet, plus QR tilt trains, plus other trains) is manufactured entirely in Maryborough.

By contrast, we have no local car manufacturers. Tens of billions of dollars have been committed to motorway expansions to alleviate traffic congestion caused by a relatively small proportion of road traffic based on bogus feasibility studies which assume that traffic will always grow. Some of these bogus proposals are already on the verge of collapse even before construction has started. These options are vastly more expensive (i.e. $750K per metre of road tunnel) than rail for much less benefit.

The only reason that mass transit is not yet at the forefront is that decision making processes have been corrupted by the undue influence of the roads/car lobby. The imminent collapse of Brisconnections will hopefully provide an opportunity for public scrutiny and a much needed change in direction to prepare for peak oil.

Given a choice between waiting for a few imported EVs to start turning up in a few years time or a rapid expansion of mass transit that would save billions of dollars per year, provide local jobs and bring billions of dollars a year into the local economy, the former makes absolutely no sense at all.

No he is not posting B/S. His sentence was "Everyone points to Asia and says, "See, they're still growing." But anecdotal evidence indicates that those export driven economies are going downwhill very fast. Auto sales are down more than 50% across the board."

BrianT, your the one that cherry picked China out of "Asia" and cherry picked China out of the words "50% across the board." Let's see what the statistics are for auto sales from Asia across the board, not just China.

You source the statistic of China auto sales down 1.44% year on year. That does not sound like a growing economy to me at this time. We can look at the Chinese stock market and ETF and mutual fund returns on Chinese investment as another indicator. Like Europe, China has proven not to be immune to a decline in the world economy, despite the worship by American investors of these economies over the last decade.

But the real future may be with China and Asia:
Interestingly, China is already much further along the path to a plug hybrid car that the U.S.
http://www.hybridcars.com/news/plug-hybrid-goes-sale-china-only-25222.html

Warren Buffet has recently invested 250 billion dollars in this company (BYD) which will build it's own batteries for the plug hybrids (a huge advantage). As articles down the page in the link I provided indicate, China has suffered from a reputation for unsafe cars, but they are working hard and fast on this problem. BYD is already scheduling it's first export sales to Isreal:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/08/byd-china-electric-cars-plug-in-...

The BYD plans are now propelling Japanese makers Nissan and Toyota to move much faster on plug hybrid and electric vehicle development. The competition is heating up. Things may be slowed down by the world economic instability at this time, but plans are already being laid for a time past the current economic troubles.

It is not unreasonable to assume that with each passing year, oil consumption will begin to flatten and then decline.

Much of the world's remaining 1 trillion or more barrels of oil will be left in the ground and under the sea. The only nation that seems totally out of the loop to the revolution fast approaching is the United States, still viewing the world as oil driven into infinity. To Americans, a world of declining oil consumption is a world of decline and death. The real future is already beginning to pass us by.

RC

Peak profitable supply = peak affordable demand, the profits depend on adequate demand and the affordabilty depends on adequate supply at any given price.

This is what many people don't get. I have used a similar phrase many times here regarding magical new technologies viz:

To be profitable it (a process) has to be affordable, conversly, If it aint affordable it won't be profitable. If it aint profitable no one will invest and it won't happen. Its an elegantly simple concept to understand.
I have often wondered how EDF really views the UK as a safe place to invest in new nuclear build. We will see in the years to come.

Marty - these charts are something else. Mega finance is not my strong point - but I do understand the implications of government action on individuals. The only thing I could guess at is individuals losing confidence in the banks and starting to hoard cash. I don't know of equivalent data in the UK - try Bank of England.

The FOOTSIE is down 5.7% today - and yet I can hear Gordon Brown saying "our prudent policies have allowed us to lower interest to the lowest level for 50 years".

This is an act of panic that will do little more than ease the pain of those who have borrowed too much. The Government is taking 12% on the pref shares they have in banks but have decided that savers should essentially receive nothing. This smacks of the death of capitalism since those with capital who may have spent some income at a time like this will have nothing to spend. Looks like we may all have to start working again:-(

Nothing to do with the Glenrothes by-election (tonight) which was a 10,000 seat majority for labour in 2005.

And a still healthy 7000 majority for Labour last night - stunning all the pollsters and politicians who'd predicted a Labour loss to the SNP.

Lengould,

There is this mantra that mgmt likes to spout:

"If you not part of the solution then your part of the problem."
Its a nauseous idiotic statement meant to say this:
"I am the smart one,you are nothing. If your not following MY lead then your an a**hole(part of the problem)."

Now we all know that mgmt (CEOs,Execs,etc) have taken us to the edge of the abyss so they are really quite dumb themselves and quite taken with such idioms.

I have mostly solved any problems on my horizon.

Airdale

"Your posts don't seem to support the idea that you are here to fix PO and any other of humanity's sustainability challenges...are you an end-timer survivalist here to heckle and to find out when you should load up all your guns?"

Well partially right.

I am an avowed survivalist. My postings have always stated thusly.
And I am definitely not here to fix PO and if you think scribblings to your congress critters will change anything then you are wrong.

I have visited mine in DC several times in the past. My son works for the federal government so I used to go to DC often. I found it to be worthless endeavors so I decided that this approach was going nowhere.

Now you at this very very late date when the crisis really starts to gen up are crying for ALL of us to come together yet you insult and demean those who saw it long ago and are making personal plans.

Get a clue.

Airdale