Three Pieces of Peak Oil Media: Simmons/Kilduff and Pickens on CNBC on GAO/Peak Oil and Kunstler on Peak Oil and the Car Culture

Here's three four pieces of media that you can send to folks to explain the basic arguments regarding peak oil. First is Matt Simmons on CNBC yesterday talking about the GAO report (7 mins), then under the fold a link to Jim Kunstler's latest talk, a piece by ABC Radio of Australia on the GAO report and peak oil, and Boone Pickens on the issue as well.

"The GAO report found no focussed coordinated government plans to prepare for peak oil or other supply disruptions."
"We are on the verge of replacing the term 'global warming' with the term 'peak oil.'"
"The best new oil basin we will ever find is the one called 'conservation.'"

And then, James Howard Kunstler, author of The Long Emergency, speaks to the Commonwealth Club of California (.mp3 warning) about the American car culture and our illusions of maintaining it with alternative fuels. (thanks to Global Public Media). (It's about one hour.)

[UPDATE by PG] I just found this presentation on the GAO report by ABC Radio International out of Australia on the GAO report and the topic of peak oil (which kindly mentions TOD, thanks!) presented by Paul Barclay featuring Michael Lardelli (5 minutes).

and then Boone Pickens (8-ish minutes):

Send this to everyone you might want to know about peak oil...implied in that is hitting the digg/reddit/linkfarms as well. Thanks for helping us spread the notion that we need to have this discussion.

We're hoping to have a youtube of the Pickens video here soon too.

Great stuff from Kunstler & Simmons.

However I still think Kunstler has slightly missed the point as he is still hoping to keep mass transport. My grandparents hardly moved from their village during their whole lives and more or less lived off the land. The world population was only one billion then though … simpler times!

I watch the precarious US oil import situation from a currently relatively safe UK perspective.

I find it ‘interesting’ that the US government thinks it is ok to stop exporting food and convert it to ethanol for US domestic use. There may be alternatives for oil, but try living without food (around 24,000 will die of hunger in the world today!)

IMO the USA suddenly cutting off exports sets a very dangerous example to the world.

Suppose the countries exporting oil to the USA today decide to cut those exports (following the US example) and keep them for their own domestic consumption! Many of the oil exporting countries probably have good reasons to justify this course of action as their populations are growing much faster than those in the major oil importing countries. Their people may well need that oil sooner rather than later.

We had all (but especially the USA) better hope that OPEC doesn’t soon become OPNEC (Organisation of the Petroleum Non-Exporting Countries!)

"Suppose the countries exporting oil to the USA today decide to cut those exports (following the US example) and keep them for their own domestic consumption!"
Many countries have made the decision to control their own exports--Iran in the 50's; Saddam in the 00's are two examples that come to mind.

Protectionism spreads. It is rising in the US, as it is always seemingly a simple solution to complex problems. I suppose enough has been posted about US-China currency / trade relations. This link from Morgan Stanley may have been (I haven’t had tine to follow everything.)

View points on immigration, same story, Julian Delasantellis in the Asia Times:

Exurbia: Built on paradox and hypocrisy

Now, the slaves should go home.

on edit, addition: the article makes links between energy, exurbia, labor, sociology and politics, though it is only a newspaper article, and a short read.

Uh, what's wrong with mass transport? As long as people don't insist on driving their own personal vehicles, I think that a combination of various forms of alternate energies could be enough to support efficient mass transit.

Sorry if this has already been discussed. I haven't been keeping up with the discussion here lately.

Bunch of commie sympathisers.

I'm currently in the midst of trying to share this with everyone I know in the UK. I don't really care if people belive me or not, I just want them to start investigating for themselves.

However there is one thing that is bugging me / holding out hope. One person in particualr, a person whom I trust and admire, has worked in the Oil industry in the past. He is adamant in his belife that there is a fortune in untapped oil in deep water off the west coast of Africa that will save our collective asses. Claims to have worked on companies that prospected for it and that they are simply keeping the discoveries close to their chest for commercial reasons.

I've already argued that I think it unlikely that any Oil Company would not disclose a find of that size, the incentives in terms of stock price rewards for them to announce seem to big to ignore. However a niggle of doubt / hope remains.

I've searched around for west African oil and not found a lot, my google-fu is weak on this issue it seems.

Can any of the TODers here set me straight? Is there a bonanza of oil sat off the west coast of Africa? If not what is there and why would anyone think there was? What are the issues around this?

Finally many, many thanks to every single one of you who contribute so much to this site in the way of analysis and writeups. It's a fantastic resource and one that makes navigating the waters of this issue that much eaiser.

There are some really good fields off the coast of Africa.

However, note that when Hubbert did his model for the Lower 48, a one-third increase in his URR estimate only extended the peak date by 5 years, from 1966 to 1971.

If we date the modern oil industry in the US from the Spindletop discovery in 1901, this one-third increase in the URR estimate and the five year period of additional growth in oil production extended the modern petroleum growth phase in the Lower 48 by about 8%--70 years instead of 65 years.

I'm sure that the math is very similar for the world.

The question is when, not if, an exponential growth rate in consumption versus a finite resource base proves impossible to sustain.

How good are these West African fields? Do you have any data on them? Can we get an article? How much time would they buy us?

"The best new oil basin we will ever find is the one called 'conservation.'" I'm not really sure about this part, even though it sounds like a reasonable attitude to adopt. I think we may have gone beyond that stage, maybe twenty years ago it would have worked. But today I think what's required, in an ideal world, is not just "conservation", whatever that really means, but something more radical. Shouldn't we actually cut our consumption of oil and gas, at least until we find some, as yet unknown substitute. But, but, but; is a cut in consumption a realistic possibility given the nature of our current political and socio-economic model? Don't get me wrong. I'm not gleefully looking forward to our system crashing. That would be a disaster. If I could choose, on balance, I'd prefer the current model to continue indefinitely. Regretibly, I have my doubts about that. Anyone for "Peak Capitalism"?

The "conservation" bit has always been one of my pet peeves.

It's a misstatement to refer to adapting to shortage as "conservation."

Conserving a resource is something you do when you have the choice to do so. And you're right: conservation would have been a very, very wise thing to do in the 80s. But Americans wanted Ronald Reagan, and you know the rest.

Dealing with shortage is more like deprivation.

Calling it conservation is like being a poor man claiming to be "saving" his cash.

Maybe, but if you sell your 10mpg SUV and buy a 40mpg diesel car (eg VW Jetta) your fuel bill will be cut by 3/4. You still get around just as much in the same level of comfort and safety. So where is the deprivation? Unless, that is, you count not having an SUV as deprivation.

If you wait till the shortage, then it's not conservation. Why is that so hard to understand?

We had the chance to conserve. IT's now too late to do anything but prepare to adapt.

Hi b,

Thanks and

re: "IT's now too late to do anything but prepare to adapt."

When you say "it's too late", I hear an echo of Prof. Hatfield, and in that I take it to be a sign of respect for him and his views.

My q is, do you see better and worse ways of "preparing to adapt?" If so, could you perhaps share some of those "better" ones?

I would say it depends on one's current situation. If I were a doctor making a coupla hundred thou a year, I'd be less worried than, say ... me.

I never offer advice or suggestions. There seems to be something about that that offends people, yet ironically enough if you talk about the effects of peak oil, people invariably say, "What should we do?" My answer: YOU figure it out.

"How would you answer these questions?" would be my response:

1. What would you do if gasoline were 5, 6, 7 dollars a gallon and/or only intermittently available?

2. What would you do if food costs tripled?

3. What if you or your partner lost a job? Is your job related to necessities or luxuries?

Westexas's ELP program says it all, really.

Hi b,

Thanks for your response, which makes sense. What I was wondering, though, (now that I think about it) is - what about on a larger scale? US? World? For eg., if you were the next President - or, were in some other position to put forward, say, an energy policy...or anything else for that matter...

That's kind of what I was trying to get at (without saying it as well as I could have). So, I'm interested in this aspect (of the community, national, international) as well. Including possible unilateral moves on the part of say, the US. (In the ideal case, I realize, still...)

A cut in consumption will cause a crash. It is our job as decent people to develop an alternative means of distributing the necessities of life so that it doesn't become a disaster. It doesn't have to be. There are so many things wrong with consumerism that I consider peak oil to be as much an opportunity as a curse.

Golly, I sure hope your correct about Peak Oil being as much of an opportunity as a curse. I'm not trying to be ironic of sarcastic here. Maybe we could think of Peak Oil as a "challange" too? You may be right. If we get through the "challange" period; and enter another, better and more sustainable socio-economic paradigme, then maybe, just maybe, we'll be able to look back on the Peak Oil period with stoicism. With a knowing smile, nodding sage-like, maybe we'll realize that it was precisley the impetus we needed to propel us on our route to the establishment of an eco-friendly, alternative society?

I appreciate your effort not to be ironic or sarcastic. Your struggle to keep a straight face is apparent even through the time and space that saparates us.

At this time there is still a lot of oil left and we waste most of what we use. Our ability to provide ourselves with food, clothing and shelter is not threatened; our jobs and our ability to get to them is. There is no necessary connection between our jobs and our ability to have the necessities of life. It is an artifact of our economic system. In my opinion, most of earn our living doing unnecessary work; many of us do work that would be better undone (sorry, I'm just now learning how to use semicolons).

To the extent that peak oil threatens this waste of our time and talents, it is a good thing.

I'm not sure why you are down on conservation. Conservation can mean doing things differently in ways that use less energy. For example, using CFLs or LEDs instead of incandescent bulbs. You still get light but use less energy. Insulating your home gives you a comfortable temperature with less expenditure of fuel. Driving a car with a better mileage rating means using less gas.

In a whole different category are changes to behavior that use less fuel (turning down the thermostat, driving less, walking more, sleeping when it is dark, reading books instead of watching TV). These are all good but changing behavior is difficult.

Conservation is great because the benefit keeps paying off far into the future. Energy use is like filling a leaky bucket. The task is easier if you plug some of the leaks.

Personally I'm not down on conservation. I'm just not sure what it means. I'm also not convinced that Matt Simmons is using the right word here. Does conservation imply actually cutting consumption or not? Or does conservation mean more efficient use of the same ammount of energy? Does conservation mean more than substitution of one method of consumption for a more efficient technology? If conservation is merely a synonym for "tech-fix" then I'm not so sure it's an adequate policy.

One of the problems I have with Al Gore is that his plan for mitigating global warming seems to skirt around the need for, in my opinion, real and substantial sacrifice by the rich, consuming nations. I'm aware that this is highly controversial and I'm not advocating cutting our consumption per se. It's not something I really want to see happening. There are massive problems connected with us cutting consumption, too many to go into here in detail.

Only I believe if we are going to stick with the economic growth paradigme going forward, all of the growth will have to occure in the developing nations and not with us. We have more than had our share. I think Gore ducks the really hard choices we face, cutting consumption and a transferance of global wealth, which I think may prove inevitable. I'm not sure how we can deny the Chinese and Indians their rightful share of the pie, bigger slices.

I think matt is a doomer-like u seem to be
becoming? ;so saying that where he did he is saying- conservation is likey the ONLY large oil basin available & you can either conserve or have a shortage your choice.
i thought it was slick given the msm .
You may have seen his brief stint in the cnn- u were
warned- he looked very worried there & said i
think something to the effect of u don't really
want to know what i think.

I also remember his last gov. presentation on po
being given to our military & that is where he sees this going.

Does conservation imply actually cutting consumption or not?

As I interpret it, (matt simmons and others) the answer is yes. The basic idea, no doubt for public consumption and easy understanding is that cutting consumption means there is more oil in ‘reserves’ or ‘in the ground’ than there would have been if everyone guzzles away.. etc. While not untrue, it seems a bit of a strange argument, not very effective, possibly designed to prepare people for shortages, or get them used to the idea of scarcity, etc. Not very hard hitting. (I am all for a sharp reduction in all energy use myself.)

Consumption will be cut; is being cut in many places (eg. Iraq, Nigeria.) The question is how with how much pain and for whom; in times of scarcity, sharing of resources becomes a screaming issue, and things can get out of hand. Having large socio-economic class differences (eg. US vs. Northern EU, the ‘rich’ mentioned) is obviously a tinder box. I remember something about people eating cake?

As a European, I am sometimes a little surprised by the mechanistic analysis favored; size of cars -mpg-, fuels for cars, or partial replacement by mass transit; greening suburbia, etc. All are vital, of course. But they don’t leave much room for social adaption, for changes in society, rather than changes in technology (or price.)

To take up only personal transport: car-sharing, hitch hiking schemes, mobility cars (cheap rental cars that are picked up at stations or underground garages, no paperwork), free bikes, pedibus lanes (these are walking lanes for children that are policed by adults) are all easy to do, even for private people without support from the Govmnt. In CH, mobility cars and hitch hiking schemes make money. (Err some of the latter did for a little while.) So do bike rentals.

‘Da Free Markett!’ - see high price of gas and car tax etc. So it is complex..

All sharing arrangements, whether commercial, private, or Gvmt. subsidised, rest on trust. On the assumption of a cohesive society where individuals obeys the rules, are not a danger to each other. And implicitly allows leeway for the occasional transgressor to be accepted as a fact of life; the individual creepo should not be punished too harshly. If a strong authoritarian stance is required to make ‘sharing’ arrangements work, they cannot function or will ultimately collapse (see eg. USSR communism or army rebellions), because they defeat their purpose by being too wasteful in time, energy, money, etc.

Note. Mobility cars, Switzerland:

Hi Noisette,

I really like how you state this concept:

re: "All sharing arrangements, whether commercial, private, or Gvmt. subsidised, rest on trust. On the assumption of a cohesive society where individuals obeys the rules, are not a danger to each other."

Very interesting. My pet example of community trust-building - (offered under the rationale that if Jeffrey can say "ELP", I can say...) - www.ashland.or.ur/Page.asp?NavID=541.)

Hi writerman,

Thanks for your comment. I like your bringing up this point -
re: "I'm not sure how we can deny the Chinese and Indians their rightful share of the pie, bigger slices."

Or course, it may be that it's not up to us, one way or the other.

At the same time, there are at least some people in those countries who are aware of the problem of jumping in line to the cliff (how else can I say it?). Let's see...the problem of pursuing the same development path.

Sunitra Narain has done some amazing work - well worth a look, (IMHO).

Some leadership from the EU/US (and I don't necessarily mean elected leaders) (though, of course, this is ideal)...could embrace the realities of the US position in regards to energy, acknolwedge some mistakes (not to minimize the mistakes, by any means) and make some real efforts to look at the role of all stakeholders, and come up with some mitigation strategies. It's possible. That's all I'm saying.

Well, no, neutrino. You may be saving yourself some money, but you are not "conserving" energy.

I've done all the above, and more, for myself, period, not because I'm under any illusions of having virtuously "conserved" energy. That energy just winds up getting used somewhere else down the line.

There is no "conservation" in a growth-dependent system. Energy use is always increasing--until it can't anymore.

Therefore, it behooves everyone to learn to live with less NOW.

The Green Zone has past, we are in the Amber Zone now and the Red Zone is approaching

In the Green Zone, supply was able to meet demand. Sufficient surplus capacity existed. Prices showed only moderate volatility. This zone ended on about May 2005 which coincidentally is the peak for crude oil & lease condensate production.

The world is in the Amber Zone now. Saudi Arabia has become supply constrained. Prices show more volatility. Price shocks occur in 2007Q4 and 2008Q4. Surplus capacity is going to zero. Supply is struggling to meet demand. Increased production from natural gas liquids and ethanol delay total liquids peak to July 2009 which is the end of the this zone. The desperate attempt to use ethanol has doubled corn prices and is now starting to increase other food prices.

The Red Zone starts just after the total liquids peak. There is no more surplus capacity. Oil prices increase at a faster rate than during the amber zone. IEA emergency sharing system is invoked and rationing occurs......


"Hope is something we really have to supply for ourselves. We are our own generators of hope, and we do it by demonstrating to ourselves that we are capable of facing the circumstances of our time, of working competently to meet these challenges, and of learning the difference between wishing and doing. In fact, what we need is not so much hope, but confidence in our inherent abilities and the will to act.

We’ve got a lot to do. We’ve got to put down the iPods and get busy. There’s no time for hand-wringing and whining. As Yogi Berra said, our whole future’s ahead of us.

Kunstler in '08 !

At least part of the media is finally beginning to pay attention.

I helped bring Matt Simmons, Jim Kunstler and Boone Pickens together in one room on November 1, 2005 at SMU University in Dallas, Texas, and the sole media coverage of the event itself was the SMU student newspaper. Prior to the event, Matt and Jim were interviewed on the local NPR station.

Link to Simmons/Kunstler interview:

BTW, I always thought that Simmons/Kunstler had a certain ring to it as a presidential ticket.

How about Kunstler / Simmons as a ticket with WT as secretary of energy?

Pickens in charge of the Fed?

Bartlett as sec for science and engineering.

Lemmy of Hawkwind could be put in charge of Organised religion.

got to go.

got to measure the speed of light (again)using a microwave, bar of chocolate and a ruler and some pins.

Isn't Science wonderful?

Aren't Friday nights wonderful?

Actually, Kunstler would be best as VP. First, I would bet that he does not want the job as president. As VP, who has nothing to do, he could run around ranting at people to shape up and what gluttonous slobs they've become. Like Cheney, people would be so terrified of a Kunstler presidency that it would be built-in protection for the prez.

Lemmy, as in Motorhead? Sweet!

yes, as in motorhead.

Also, I am sure you will be relieved to know that the speed of light has not changed in the last week.

Coverage of that at event at SMU by Outdoor magazine is what opened my eyes for the first time to the whole subject of peak oil and energy in general. But for that event I might still be living with my eyes closed.

I forgot about the magazine article. I guess I should say we had no MSM TV/newspaper coverage. It was quite an experience driving JHK and the reporter around the suburban wasteland in North Dallas.


Could you please send me an email with your private email address? I live and work in Lubbock and would like to hook up with you if you are nearby. My email is mhicks at mhba dot com. Thanks.

westexas at

I'm currently in North Dallas, but we are going to move--probably either Portland, Oregon area or the Texas Hill Country. We are going to Portland next week to check the place out.

Portland is nice. I lived and worked in the Portland area for 12 years (Lake Oswego) and the area has a lot going for it. But it was a big disappointment when they started dropping/expanding the growth boundaries that had been in place for years.

That said, the overall mindset of the area seems more likely to deal with PO in a positive manner than most moderately large cities. When I worked downtown it was enjoyable to walk to clients' offices and walk to lunch or eat in the square with friends. It seemed that co-workers developed stronger bonds and friendships because they didn't just hop in their cars to go somewhere alone.

Funny. My wife and I have a trip planned to the Portland area for same reason. Sorry to those folks already in coastal Oregon--afraid they may be receiving many "guests" soon.

Hi Jeffrey,

re: Texas Hill Country. I have some friends in that area. I see a lot of potential for "peak oil" outreach (and even action/planning) there.

You might want to check out the Grants Pass area. I found it absolutely beautiful. Like what I would imagine Sherwood Forest to look like.

I enjoyed the interviewers question on why the wide predictive gap by the GAO of from 'now to 2040'. It is quite a kind statement in it's way, as it gives the listener to this dire news the opportunity to pick a date that suits their fear quota for the day. I've got a busy day today so my quota for added fear is low...I'm going for 2040 today.

my quota for added fear is low

Funny how that works. I burned up my Husky 266 saw and need to replace it. Looks like a jonsered 2165 or 2171 or maybe a husky 262. I found myself today considering my last chainsaw and wondering if a lower RPM motor is going to last longer than a higher RPM because a new saw will be much more expensive if even available at all. So much for globalization and throwing things away. The 266 would cost more to repair than replace *today* because the main bearing is trashed. Maybe in ten years it will be cheaper to repair. So I'll keep it in the barn.

cfm in Gray, ME


I'm into quality chain saws. My oldest ones are Echos and they are pushing 30 years - 2-24". I also have a 16" Poulan that I bought as a factory rebuild years ago and is now slowly dying, a Husky 372XP with a 32" bar and I just bought a Husky 167 with a 16" bar. It's a play saw but was what I needed to replace the Poulan. I also have 2-16" and one 6" electric.

I maintain and baby these things. I use the lowest rpm possible. I also baby their chains.

I'll tell you, I'll quit driving before I give up may chain saws because the reality is no firewood no heat. I cut 3 or so cords of wood a year.


Isn't the reality no petroleum no chainsaw?

1) the chainsaw runs on it (fuel, lube and chain oil)
2) the truck that you use to gather the wood
runs on it

Also I've noticed shiny SUVs with trailers and new K-Mart chainsaws coming from town to local back roads to scavenge for wood. Maybe an axe and wheelbarrow is all we'll have one day.

By then we will likely be living in something mobile
like a tepee; or a least a couple factors of 10
less sq. ft./person. BTW todd has said he has a couple
of 2-man saws(misery whips- i believe is how he referred to them). I got a couple too as backup & to pass on to my kids ;hopefully.

I used to own an Outdoor Power Equipment business. I had a Stihl,Echo,Sachs Dolmar ,Lawnboy and other dealerships.

I hardly ever allowed a Poulan into the shop.

Test: Take a brand new Poulan clutch/sprocket and lay in on your workbench.Lay beside it a brand new Stihl clutch/sprocket.Observe the enormous differences in the quality. You will keep the Stihl part and throw the Poulan in the ditch. Metamorphically speaking of course but the differnces are extremely obvious. And as the sprocket goes the chain and bar.That said I have seen an ocassional Poulan that seems to run and cut rather well. An oddity I assume since a blind pig ocassionally finds an acorn.

Husky? Far as I recall was a newcomer on the market. I repaired them using Jonserd parts and therefore asssumed they brought out Jonsred and then could claim to have many years in the market when they were actually new.

To become a Husky dealer you had to stock and enormous amount of their inventory so I decided NO WAY. Besides I thought the saw to be rather worthless.

Stihl was my favorite along with Echo and Sachs. I had a brand new two cylinder Echo that I took out and admired on ocassion. It was a collectors saw. Very very few made. I sold it for a handsome price when I closed down the business. However it didn't cut or handle any better than a single.

When I quit the business I took 8 saws to my barn , cases of bar and chain oil and a couple reels of chain. I kept my Stihl chain grinder for some years but eventually sold it too, a mistake.

I however have a hand grinder with carbide cutter that does just as good though slower.

To this day I can hear a chain saw being run near a mile away and tell if its sharp or dull. Sometimes I can tell if the operator had sex the night before!!!!!!!and what he had for breakfast!!!!!!

Ahh well all joking aside...the chain saw is a hell of a good product but I can stand and watch and idiot destroy one in less than 30 minutes.

In one of out dealer classes they would take a brand new Stihl(say 028av). Start it up and run it wide open and it would self destruct in less than 10 minutes.

The causes for this could be many but in their demo is was simply stale gas mix. You then got to look at the piston and cylinder after teardown.

Here is my favorite scenario. Guy gets a new chain since he has ruined his old one. He gets a cheapy like maybe Rhino or whatever off a rack at the BigBoxStore. He goes out to the wood pile and cuts with his new chain. In something less than one days cutting he has destroyed the saw.

How? The new chain was not prelubed and he didn't lube it before installing it. Before the oil pump could lube the bar and thus the tiechain internal rivet/bars they were overheated and lost their temper. With temper lost they began to wear quite fast thereby placing slack in the hot chain. He stopped the saw and took the slack out since it might have jumped the rail or just looked saggy. He started back sawing. Maybe stopped to remove slack once more as the tie bar connectors kept wearing away. Finally he turns it off with the chain still tight and quits for the day. The chain begans to contract as it cools and pulls the crankcase bearings and seals. Now you have a leak in the crankcase,ruined seals/bearings and the carb fuel pump which operates on crancase pressure will cause the saw to not start. He has effectively destoryed a fairly new saw in one day. At this point I once saw a neighbor(back in Mo.) take a sledgehammer to his chain saw in anger for not starting.
He beat it into the ground. Some time later he was butchering a goat hanging on a tree and asked to borrow my crosscut hand saw. I didn't lend it to the fool.

If you buy a quality chain it should be in plastic and PRELUBED. Stihl chains usually are. In shops where they make up chains,like in my shop. I would place the pristine chain in a coffee can of bar oil and heat it slightly for an hour or so. Else put the new chain on the bar and drizzle bar oil over it. Run it very slowly and shut down. Repeat until its obvious that all the internal components of the chain are well lubed.

Some customers were such assholes they couldn't wait so they got just what they asked for. A dry chain.

Many assholes thought they were masters at sharpening a chain with a hand file. They were NOT. They then found how much fun it was to cut firewood with slanted sides and then found how great it was to try to stand one on a splitting block!!!...

The idiots of the world do not need to be touching or owning good chain saws. Should be part of the Ten Commandments.

I would buy a locked up chain saw for $25. The parts were worth maybe 10 times that. I had plenty of saws to take parts from . I sold them at reasonable prices to good customers.

I finally sold my inventory and went back to mainframe consulting after 5 years of this and people stopped cutting wood. I refused to work on rusted out lawnmowers and Homelite/WalMart junk so I hung it up. I left with over $150,000 in just Stihl inventory that I could sell to anyone. Overall my father had over $300,000 in inventory. I let it go cheap and walked away.

Bad story. Bad karma. But I still savor my chain saws in the basement. One Sachs has a 33" bar and rip chain with which I filtch cut oak butt logs into planks for myself with a small lumber mill. Alaska Mill III.

Sad to say most of the hardwoods are disappearing around here due to heavy timbering. I have some pecan,walnut , sassafras and cherry stored away that I slabbed out some time back. I love to work in wood.

Airdale--watch that chain,keep it oiled and sharp or you WILL BURN your bar. Those blue lines say you did.

EDITTED : I know this is way way OFF TOPIC. But if I can help one person preserve a good chain saw then it was worth it.

I bought a Jonsered Electric chain saw which I run off of my electric solar charged car for cutting firewood

Any chance of finding a solar chain saw?(just kidding)

Try a beaver, but I understand they're hard to handle.

Good finishing quote by Matt Simmons:

The best new oilfield we will ever find is conservation.

My eyes kept on getting drawn to the model oil well pumping along behind him.

I do think we can expect a counteroffensive--perhaps an announcement of how much oil is in the arctic or somewhere followed by a CERA response to the GAO report (they surely have a rebuttal pre-written) and perhaps Denial Yurgin hosting Saturday Night Live.


I kept looking at it too!


I love how Simmons slammed the host when the host tried to slander the Peal Oil Movement as politically motivated.

The irony is that the opposite is true.

The "expert" above Simmons was Iago in the flesh. I think Simmons got a little annoyed that they kept on pooh-poohing him. He seemed insulted by it, as he should have.

Not politically motivated, that is about right.

Commercially motivated, though. Corn growers in the US in a boom and rivaling oil producers, now they get a look in! Mega profits! (Subsidies..) Farmers are not just dumb dopes feeding those metro-sexuals...but a vital, essential, part of the economy...

''The best new oil basin we will ever find is the one called 'conservation.'"

That has to be the quotation of the decade.

The best and most chilling comment Simmons made was that the whole fossil fuel era is waning: oil, gas, coal, all of it. As in it's over folks. That's our whole civilization he's talking about. When its all gone we're back to swinging through the trees again.

Time to get that vasectomy if you haven't already. You don't want any offspring that have to face this.

"Time to get that vasectomy if you haven't already. You don't want any offspring that have to face this."

Well, not if you think the stuff is really going to hit the fan. Then you probably want 4 or 5 kids to provide for you and your spouse when you get "old", sick, etc.

Children and other extended family are the "welfare state" of the poor.

Pretty much a universal pattern across cultures and history as far as I know, so I'd expect to see it return in the presently "wealthy" i.e. intense "energy slave" using countries, as the slippage ramps up

For ppl being self-sufficient on a farm or small local, traditional, business, yes, because the man-power really counts; because to ensure the future, in a fixed position, planning time is very long. Survival of the small self-sufficient unit - or integrated somewhat, requires children as future workers. They can also be bartered for money or advantage in various cultural arrangements, eg. dowries, etc. - these are exchange mechanisms between extended family units.

In OECD countries there is a small, statistically not very important, move towards having more children, amongst the rich only, they can afford it.

Having tremendous properties and a stay-at-home wife has pushed some in the upper classes to invest in children as a brand of social and monetary status. Here, we call them IKEA children, as they are socially perfect and trained to sit in the back of a huge car or in front of a castle home and pose for photographs.

Stars who adopt slews of children, from the innovative Josephine Baker to Angelina Jolie reinforce the theme. (Polygamy is forbidden.)

Traditional societies 'abroad' had, or have, the same bent. Having many wives and 50 children are a mark or power, status, financial success. And that goes beyond the ‘support’ aspect.

Hi Noisette,

For human beings to view children (and people) as what we might term "status objects" - or as any other kind of object - other than human beings is more than sad - it's tragic (esp. for the "human-as-object").

At the same time, I know people who adopt (and/or would adopt if they had the view they could afford it). Not that they are stars. Just to say, it seems to me that some people are particularly inclined towards giving that kind of nurturing - just a talent, perhaps.

I saw part of a documentary on Josephine Baker, where her grown children were interviewed, and what struck me was the way they talked about her. It was obvious she was their mother; they loved her and felt loved. That was my impression, albeit based on my limited information.

There was another CNBC tidbit today on the price of oil. One guy seemed rather complacent and referred to previous cycles and how high prices always brought on massive oil production. The did talk about Iran and the Straights of Hormuz.

Sorry, no link as I updated my video driver and it screwed up my settings making the CNBC site unreadable.

Ethanol emissions story on CBC

Also US corn futures down on increased crops planted

There is a focussed coordinated government plan to prepare for peak oil or other supply disruptions. It's called the Iraq War.

I wonder if they read TOD

Giant oil fields, the new parameter for peak oil production

"Fredrik Robelius in the Department of Nuclear and Particle Physics at Uppsala University published his doctoral thesis today in which he says the rate of extraction from giant oil fields is a better indicator of the peak than oil prices. "