Comments on: Electrical Boston

By: TJGodel

TJGodel — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:39:56 +0000

It's not necessary to have an annual conference, but it would be nice if BOS area venture capitalists setup to promote the area like certain a certain NYC VC. http://bit.ly/7TNz0

By: TJGodel

TJGodel — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:39:56 +0000

It's not necessary to have an annual conference, but it would be nice if BOS area venture capitalists setup to promote the area like certain a certain NYC VC. http://bit.ly/7TNz0

By: gregor.us

gregor.us — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:26:18 +0000

Hi. I have dealt with the very area you mention on a thematic basis, but not so much on a quantitative basis. Eventually, to really make headway one will need to obtain the Developing or Non-OECD demand data from IEA Paris. Which is available for purchase at IEA.

For my thematic take on this subject, though you may have already read the post, see The Restructuring of Global Energy Demand.

G

By: pm3

pm3 — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:20:39 +0000

Gregor – thanks for sharing your views; it's difficult to find a well-reasoned and researched discussion of the topics that you cover. If it's possible, would you be able to discuss in a little more detail the idea that consumers in the developing world will be able to outbid those in the US for oil/fuel in the coming years? I am working on a simple model that looks at post-peak oil consumption in the developed and developing world. Right now, I am looking for ways to come up with a reasonable range of possibilities for allocating increases/descreases in oil comsumption among developed and developing countries. Thanks again

By: Bernard_S

Bernard_S — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 01:39:31 +0000

Many thanks for your response, and please send a more concise and measured response to Scientific American's Letters to the Editor! This magazine has a highly educated readership – I believe it will make a difference (if printed, of course!)

Bernard

By: gregor.us

gregor.us — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 17:23:09 +0000

I have now read the Scientific American article. It is perhaps one of the more, if not the most insidious of the recent media pieces on peak oil, in that it leverages the truth about technological advances in oil exploration and extraction to create a falsehood: that these technological advances increase aggregate flows in world supply. It was bad enough that the NYT piece invoked Kashagan as an example--a howler of an example really--because of course Kashagan was discovered in 2000 and not a drop of oil will flow until 2014 (at huge expense and after many western oil cos have abandoned the project after huge losses). That the NYT would invoke Kashagan as an example of recent discoveries is almost absurdist. The Sci-Am article also trades on one of the most common, recurring misunderstandings and that has to do with scale. In other words, we are always finding new oil and we have to find new oil because we are losing at least 4 Mb/day each year to decline. So we have to not only find new oil, but we have to develop it and get it flowing each year to make up for existing decline. Sci-Am is reporting on technology advances that have been used for years, but, then very inaccurately runs those advances like a stupid battering ram against peak oil. Which is about peak flows, not peak reserves. It was a truly astonishing article. Any article that conflates reserves and flows is incompetent. The treatment of California and ALberta in particular in the Sci-Am article was so misleading as to be a textbook example of statistical and polemical obfuscation. California oil production peaked in 1986 at over 1.2 Mb/day and is now at half that rate. To lead the reader into thinking that something new is coming for California is quite the dereliction of journalistic duty. Alberta has billions of bbls of oil but will that stop a US politician from claiming we can increase flows of tar sand oil quite alot, from Alberta? No, but one would have expected something better than a politician's approach to a real problem from a magazine that uses the word Science in its title.

Hope this helps. I encourage all to read the Sci-Am article.

G

By: Ian

Ian — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 19:36:35 +0000

Do you think its interesting that the response on The Oil Drum focused more on financial issues (oil expenditures > some amount of personal income cause recessions) than on geology? I think the latter is much more clear cut than the former.

By: gregor.us

gregor.us — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:16:46 +0000

Thanks for the question. I have to see the entire article first, and hope to do so this weekend. Meanwhile, QThe Oil Drum has taken a first swipe at the article today, in this posting: Peak Oil Not a Problem According to NY Times; Scientific American - But these Articles Overlook Financial Aspects.

As a general rule: virtually no one who refutes Peak Oil uses the single, accepted definition of Peak Oil--and that is the peak of flows--not the peak of resources. It's a crucial distinction.

G

By: Bernard_S

Bernard_S — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 12:44:43 +0000

gregor.us – Would you be willing to comment on the extensive article in the latest issue of Scientific American arguing that peak oil is not a current threat. The author is Leonardo Maugeri of the Italian oil company Eni.

Thank you – Bernard_S

By: mika2k1

mika2k1 — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 12:20:17 +0000

The real US military budget is $1.2 trillion a year. A great deal of that money is illicitly taken from other gov agencies and programs, as well as the CIA drug trade. (See: Catherine Austin Fitts). The sole purpose of all of this activity is to subsidize Jihadi oil, the car/oil/military mafia, and the project of Empire. Americans need to know and understand this, so when they look in the mirror and see their disgusting gluttonous Yankee Imperialist fat face they know what and who they really are.