I'm curious Gail.

1) How many of your colleagues know you are 'into' peak oil?

2) Do you intro them to this stuff and if so what do they make of it?

3) Are they believers or do they think you are a fruitcake?!!:-(

The reason for my questions is that if I try to introduce the topic I get the blanked over looks and/or head in sand and/or shut up treatment!! This reaction is not proportional to IQ either!!
Cheers,

Marco.

I have several questions:

1. What experiences have people had with self-publishing books? Who do you recommend?

2. What is your view on using a "regular" publishing company? (By the time one counts up the pages, what I have laid out is a small book.)

3. What requirements would schools have with respect to supplemental texts? Would they need to be published by known publishers?

4. How does one handle promotion and distribution of a booklet or book?

5. Are individual chapters in PDF form helpful?

Nice summary, I think. The balance and tone are well crafted. The facts, so to speak, without the doom and gloom.

Two things...

Your first graph is about discovery and the text directly above it refers to production.

A graph of oil production by ten year periods is as shown below...

Second. A couple of days ago. RR offered a fascinating short math exercise in one of his bio-fuel comments. It went something like...

there are 4047 square meters per acre, average insolation is 4 kWh per square meter, 1 kWh = 3412 BTUs, photosynthetic efficiency is about 4.5% therefore...and he walked it all of the way to global potential (or lack thereof).

His logic would be a great asset to one of your future chapters. It really nails the energy density consideration.

My fear, from folks that I talk to, is the ubiquitous assumption that we will be able to fashion a substitute liquid fuel. I think it is important to kill that assumption.

Peak Oii? Is that the pinnacle of shouting?

"Oii Oii Oii! You kids get off the lawn!"

Gail, I believe that #10 needs a change in emphasis to the short term, transitional problem, as it seems clear to me that in the medium to long term wind & solar (mainly as electricity) can indeed replace oil.

As far as transportation & liquid fuels go, it seems to me that the clear solution here is to electrify transportation, mostly in the form of plug-in hybrids (PHEVs), like the GM Volt.

It's scalable, practical and cost-effective. The techology is here, and the practical engineering & production planning will be done in 2-3 years: take a look at http://www.gm-volt.com .

Vehicle turnover is faster than you might think: 50% of vehicle miles are driven by vehicles less than 6 years old - see http://npts.ornl.gov/npts/1995/Doc/table8.pdf

EV's and PHEV's were never competitive before, but they were always workable - heck, Jay Leno drives a 1909 EV that works just fine, and still uses the original battery - they just weren't all that convenient, what with charging and limited range. Now batteries have gotten better, fossil fuels much more expensive, and we're sensible moving to a compromise PHEV design. PHEV's are now surpassing ICE vehicles in every way, and their competitive edge is only getting stronger.

The current grid has surplus night capacity sufficient to replace most vehicles with PHEV's (see http://www.pnl.gov/energy/eed/etd/pdfs/phev_feasibility_analysis_combine... ), and PHEV charging and wind power are a match made in heaven.

What’s the downside? Only that it will indeed take a frustratingly long time (from our point of view) to get on the road in large volumes. The Volt is planned for 2010 (though I suspect GM is planning a 2009 surprise), and GM plans for 1M on the road in 5 years.

A plug-in Prius may take 3-5 years to arrive, though when it does it will probably arrive with a bang, as Toyota says they expect to move all of their vehicles to hybrids, and changing a hybrid assembly line to make plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) is pretty straight forward. In the US hybrid sales are at 350,000 per year, or 2% of all light vehicles, and growing at about 55% per year. It may take 10 years from now to get to where hybrids/PHEVs are a majority of sales.

Does that make sense to you?

Gail, excellent job!

One slight wording change in your chapter "What is peak oil" . Oilfields don't "gradually" get better as new wells are drilled, they "incrementally" get better. Also, add "as the pressures decline" to your explanation of why wells decline. The chart labeling problem, which I also noticed was covered above.

But these are slight editing problems, I like the idea! Keep writing!
Bob Ebersole

Peak oil (PO) is a difficult thing for people in OECD countries to understand while it is in the future ... "bad things don't happen to nice people." ... that's why you don't see much about it on TV or in newspapers ... yet!

However, it looks like PO is soon to be here (at the very least!) and then people will panic and want to know more real quick ... so to be prepared with your book is a good idea IMO.

For free publishing you might want to try

http://www.lulu.com/products/books/paperback.php

Also, somewhere you might want to include that 'geologic PO is a "best case" scenario' ... in general things are likely to be considerably worse because of above ground factors like terrorism (example Nigeria) or political idealism (example Venezuela) or Export Lands looking after their own people first after the peak occurs (example UK) etc, etc.

Or is that just way too frightening?

Xeroid.

Great article.

For limited runs, you might try ClickBook. You can print your own book from a PDF, or from Word. It was featured in a Writer's Digest newsletter.

http://www.clickbook.com/

If it isn't too many pages (less than 120), then you can just print each copy as you need 'em.

Gail: great job, will be a very useful site (and booklet) to direct people to. I eagerly await your Chapter 3, as this seems to be the most, well, consequential aspect of the booklet.

Gail, - good project.
I think you need one or two chapters on "Prior to Peak Oil", covering demand exceeding supply and the Export Land model.
Is there any chance that you will produce a complementary power-point presentation?
Murray

Hi Gail,

More editing comments:

There's a typo in the third paragraph: TheOillDrum.com

Can you insert the TOD "header" graphic at the top of each chapter? That will give the brochure a more polished look, plus give TOD more brand awareness.

Adobe Acrobat enables you to make active web links inside a PDF document (unless you have a really old version).

Don't forget to include a brief bio for yourself in each chapter document. That will give it more clout.

Keep up the good work!

Xokiawitl

Q8-iranian investment...Iranian investment

Q9 "He also predicted a worldwide peak around 2000."-Not necessary. Could list all Campbells' prediction's too, but it adds little to primer.

Q10 "None of these appear to be very scalable" Scalable is a slightly undefined term, reader probably not sure of meaning. Better to just explain for a primer. Perhaps: "None of these options can provide the required volumes of oil to replace that which we use."

Gail, I wanted to say thanks for the great pieces. I've recommended Part I to quite a few. You seem to be able to say it in a way that I can't. That is, being an engineer I tend to lose them pretty quickly.

I had no idea what Peak Oil was until I read about it this March. At first I thought, "Is this some Saudi horse race?". And then I kept on reading. I really shouldn't have read LATOC first though. I'm not as dystopian as Savinar, although I am looking for my relocation location. I'll give you a hint, it will be in a country with a lot less automatic weapons being wielded by unprepared and angry mobs, and at 1/9th the population with lots of natural resources - I hear hockey is pretty popular there.

I've been finding the receptive audience mixed. Some are in denial and some have come around. I do get the glazed look and have learned to move on. When I've conducted discussions on the subject I try to remain middle of the road for predictions. Looking forward to more material!

P.S. my user name comes from the fact that we've been renovating a Victorian era house for the past two years and you bend quite a lot of nails in 120 year old heart of pine. Everyone in our neighborhood gets it right away ;)

Very nice beginning, and about the right pace.

A quibble: "nuclear" is only mentioned as a reference link to issue #9 -- it's actually related to #10. Also, I'd recommending discussing it in the list of alternatives in that issue, if for no other reason than that many people will think of it as an "obvious" solution.

(Maybe it's worth a chapter or appendix on the possibilities and limitations of the main alternatives, divided into short-, medium-. and long-term sections.)

Many here have noted the glazed eyes and even angry, isolating responses they have received when discussing peak oil with others. Patience is the order of the day. Those who are peak oil aware may feel powerless facing the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance. The belief that we have plenty of energy and can afford to live as we now live has deep cultural currency. In fact, most people have based the way the live upon that belief. When evidence is presented which challenges that which undergirds our lives, it creates dissonance, a sour note which must be resolved. The theory of cognitive dissonance (psychologist Leon Festinger) predicts that people will strongly favor resolution which confirms their commitments, and deflect evidence which would require change.

What may be required for change is saturation of the airwaves with peak oil news and explanation. Right now, news is only available to those who search for it (peak oil aware). It is very easy for those inclined to ignore (plug your ears, "la, la, la") to do so. I have no interest in becoming a target by being the personal bearer of bad news. As long as CERA, Lynch, et al, are able to present a believable alternative, people will continue to choose to believe what is comforting and reduces dissonance. I'm not sure what the critical mass would be to produce a World War II patriotic response toward energy in the USA. In World War II, the population reduced consumption of energy markedly once they knew the cause was serious. Many abandoned overnight commonly held views that the US should stay out of European and Asian Wars once we were attacked by Japan. I believe our job is to continue publishing what we know, writing letters to Senators and congressional leaders, the newspapers, the blogosphere. Once we have the equivalent of a Pearl Harbor with energy, others will talk to us and be willing to hear what we have been saying all along.

Unfortunately, the catalyst for change may come too late to mitigate a hard crash. May it not be so.

Hi Gail,

Thanks again for the opportunity to give feedback. I actually made fairly extensive notes, and I'm not sure of a nice (readable) way to share them. I'll just give it a try and perhaps try again later. And...could you please put a large "IM(very)HO" in front of each one? (I'd very much like this to be helpful.)

1) Something I don't quite know how to say or where it belongs - except it seems crucial to me:

What seems missing right in the beginning is a sentence or two that lays out the extreme degree of dependency (on oil, FF in general) that humans today have, and that human consumption is key. The whole tone kind of comes across w. an emphasis on the supply, as though human needs, or what we might call "human-constructed" needs and human actions are left out.

To be specific, I'd suggest going through and taking a big marker ("To Revise") to *any* sentence with passive construction. Example, #1, sentence one: "...the amount of oil that can be extracted from the earth..."

An active voice is almost always better for several reasons. One of them - to note "who" is doing the action, seems to me to be a crucial part of what we want to convey when we talk about the entire issue. (It's people - and people can (perhaps) change.)

So, an alternate might read "...the amount of oil human beings - (specifically, national and corporate oil companies) - can extract..."

2) While I'm on sentence one...To use the phrase "begins to decline" as the essence of the definition of "peak" I think might be confusing to the novice reader. Why? Because "peak" implies "top of hill" - and then to talk about "decline" brings in a different image.

Perhaps something like: " 'Peak oil; refers to the maximum (in both rate and amount) of oil that humans can extract from the Earth. For over a hundred years, we have been able to find and use increasing amounts of oil..." - ?

(Gail, I'm sure you can find better suggestions! I'm just trying for what it's worth.)

Or, perhaps:

"Peak is the maximum amount of oil that human agents (national and private oil companies) can extract from the earth at any one time. This rate is set by both geology and the ability of extraction technology. The maximum is there because the amount of oil underground is finite in volume."

I meant to take a look at the "Peak Oil Primer" over at Energy Bulletin - to see what they say. (Given my luck, though, I don't dare leave the page.) **

3) I'd also highly recommend even just one additional sentence that talks about *why* the "what" is important. I know to many of "us" here, these things are obvious. I can't tell you how strongly, though, I've come to the conclusion that many people simply have no way at all to grasp what "we" would call (perhaps) energy density. Plus, (again) the degree of dependency.

So, I'd suggest - even one sentence, such as: "'Peak Oil' is important because oil is the primary energy source for a huge number of human activities..."

4) Gail - I don't know to what extent you'd like to make this a group project. I was thinking that one of the editors over at EB might be able to lend a hand, and the result might be "two heads better", etc.

I'm thinking that the beginning here (even though I may sound picky) is important because this is where you'll grab the reader.

5) You know, now that I look at it, sentence two is also in the form of a passive construction, as is sentence three.

a) Let's see: "We find it more and more difficult to..." Or "Oil workers find it more and more difficult to..."

b) "X uses the term "peak oil" to describe a decline in..."

Analysts? Do you see what I mean? Generally, active voice is more engaging. Or even "We use the term 'peak oil' to mean.."

Question 2:

1) Here I just have a technical question. Is it the case that each and every field (known to humankind) also has water in it?

2) Again, it's work - but I think it might pay off to just take a look at the passive construction, or perhaps see if someone else might be willing to help with this. eg. "production is abandoned." v. "producers abandon the well."
It's kind of nitty detail - the thing is, the "voice" adds up after a while. The more active voice, the better.

3) "We can think of..." (as opposed to "can be thought of")

Here, I'd try to come up with a list of phrases that can substitute ("on call"!) for "peak oil". Examples. "Beginning of production decline", "Maximum oil we'll ever see" - I'd suggest enlisting better help than mine for this. Just that - it might be nice to have several different ways to convey the meaning. This way the phrase "peak oil" will not be over used.

I'd also q why you write "on a worldwide basis" for this sentence. I'm just not sure the main point you'd like to convey. The idea of "resources needed to produce oil" seems very important.

Do you think it might be helpful to distinguish "energy resources" ("the oil it takes to get more oil") and the other resources you list?

Or, perhaps say "We can think of "peak oil" as a crises in having resources , esp. energy resources, we need to produce oil."

The sentence as is, is kind of vague, in that I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I'm just thinking you might be able to be a little more specific. Otherwsie - well, what is the "crises" in resources mean? Does it mean that - well, just wait a while, or do X, Y, Z and the "crises" will be solved?

Because...is it not the case that...even with "enough" rigs, engineers and money...we'd still reach "peak"? (i.e., but we can't have "enough" money, because...it's really the work required to get at the oil translated into money.) (Well, like I said...perhaps Bart or Adam could help out?)

So, I guess I'm saying...I kind of like the meaning (or intent) in "step backs" offering below. I'm not a fan of the way he puts it, exactly. I do like the first two sentences of his third paragraph. Talking about putting a gun to Mother Earth's head...well, perhaps a little bit of a different tone that what you want. I like quite a bit of his paragraph three.

Question three:

Again, I'd just be on the lookout for that pesky passive voice, (if nothing else, just to try out the difference).

more active "...the quantity of oil we discover"

Or, try this:

"We do continue to discover oil, but the finds are smaller, on average, and the rate of discovery has dropped quite a bit over the last four decades. Also, new finds are located in much harder-to-reach places, such as in the ocean (known as "offshore")."

I'm going to just add a couple more things, and hope I haven't worn out my welcome. (Also, to try to get this in before I run out of time.)

Number 5: Here, again...it seems like you might be able to write this in such a way that we get more of a sense of where oil comes from. Yes, "we all" know. But (believe me) a lot of people just have never given it a moment's thought.

So, I'd try to re-write sentence two. "...assumes an adequate supply of oil..."

My suggestion one be to try to paint more of a picture, and be alittle mroe specific.

What does world oil production look like?

Well, I'd say the first thing to find out is - where does it come from?

Maybe a little map with major oil extractors (regions) noted?

Also, I'd add a short phrase giving a little more definition to "OPEC".

Again, the passive ..."unless...there will be a need for..."

I'd try something like "...unless...motorists and other users will continue to want to increase the amount of oil they consume..."

Ok, well, now that I've stuck myself out on such a limb...

Question 8.

First sentence..."We can't know for certain..."

My first reaction is "Why not?"

If you're going to say "We can't know for certain...", I'd suggest adding at least one sentence about "why".

Gail, I'm thinking...I have some more detailed comments. Would you like them and/or would this be helpful?

If so, would you like me to send them via email? Or, should I come back tomorrow and see if I'm still "allowed" back on this thread?

I also made some notes on Chapter two, if you'd like me to share those.

In any case, thanks again.