The ASPO Conference - First Afternoon

President of ASPO, Kjell Aleklett

The afternoon session of the first day of the Conference was chaired by the Economics Editor of RTE, George Lee who pointed out the general public lack of awareness of the current situation. He noted that when he did a program on the subject he was assailed by the Irish media, with negative cartoons, and the clear impression that he was on a subject that the public did not understand, or care to know about. The first presentation was by Dr Herman Franssen of the IEA, talking about Global Energy Demand trends. Sad to admit, I did not get to hear this so I will pass on to the second paper, which was by Professor Pang the founder of ASPO-China. He noted that China had peaked in oil production in 2005. As production continues it has a ratio of 12:1 between reserves and production of crude, (relative to a figure he quoted of 40:1 for the world ratio); and 42:1 for natural gas (against a world ratio of 60:1). In consequence China spent $63 billion on importing fuel in 2006. In order to meet demand China is sending delegations around the world and now has 65 projects in 25 countries. It has just become a coal-importing country (and in response to a question from Dr. Schlesinger he confirmed that China has cancelled its CTL plans, because of the amount of coal that would be needed for their operation).

China has initiated a program to increase self-produced oil, to reduce oil consumption and to develop renewable alternatives.

The third speaker was Jeff Rubin of CIBC in Canada, who has been following this for some time. He sees a changing set of demand dynamics as the world thirst for oil invalidates some pre-conceptions. For example one might have thought that the increase in price would shackle demand, but it did not. However that only holds as an overall observation, for example demand outside the OECD grew by 4% last year, Canadian, American, European and Japanese demand declined, combining to give an overall increase of around 2%. He anticipates that by 2015 non-OECD will out-consume the OECD, partially as a result of price and the “carbon wars.” This will be led by China and India, but one must also look to the oil producing countries, where oil is cheap and demand is burgeoning. Over the past 5 years, for example, Kuwait has averaged 7% growth, Saudi Arabia 5%, and Iran 4.5%. OPEC, Russia and Mexico collectively consume 12.2 mbd (300,000 bd more than Western Europe) and their growth will likely continue and begin to constrict exports from those producers. Within the next four years, for example, he anticipates that the above group will increase production by about 0.5 mbd, but with a domestic increase in demand of 1.5 mbd will effectively have to cut exports by about 1 mbd to stay in balance.

He felt that Russia’s role in providing a growing supply is beginning to be played out, with rising domestic consumption of up to 4.5% swamping any gains in production. He thinks that current export levels will be the best that Russia will provide, at around 7 mbd, and the shortfall from anticipated growth will not be available from OPEC. Mexican production is failing along the lines of their “worst case” scenario, but domestic demand is growing at 4%, so that exports may drop to 200,000 bd by 2010. The result will be prices above $80 in the 4th Quarter of this year, and $100 oil next year. And, while this will reduce demand further in the OECD, it will have no effect on consumption in the production group, where price is not affected.

This changing picture will improve oil sand economics and so he sees Albertan oil coming in at 3.5 mbd by 2015 (note he is a Canadian economist). Even with an additional $3 to $4 added to oil supply costs to deal with carbon dioxide issues, the oil sands will move to displace deep offshore as the marginal source of oil supply. And, increasingly, it will become one of the very few places where international oil companies can continue to operate, becoming the “last, best game in town.”

The three speakers were then joined by an additional set for the panel discussion, with introductory remarks led off by Jim Barry who chose to leave most of his remarks to a later presentation, since he was to be our host and speaker at the Gala Dinner. He was joined by Richard Douthwaite who talked of carbon rationing and its role as a “scarcity rent” as availability of hydrocarbons declines. He felt that we are heading into a global recession, and for many of the poor Peak Oil has already happened. It is not yet so for the rich, who are further separating themselves from those to whom a liter of petrol now costs 3 weeks of labour. He noted that world grain stocks are at their lowest level in 30 years, and considering that this is due to Global Warming (GW) he felt that the way to reduce carbon use per person was to go to a “cap and trade” system. With the creation of a market for individual portions of the cap he felt that this would be a way of constraining production while also acting to provide the poor with an income, since they could sell their quota.

David Fleming spoke to the need to reduce energy demand both from a Peak Oil and a GW point of view. From this he had developed the Tradable Energy Quotas this is something like the cap shares that Richard Douthwaite mentioned though they are distinctly different ideas.

On being asked as to where the leadership lay, the reply was that is lies with the political leadership. Politicians are a focused target and it would take too long to develop as a public issue, but that is the challenge for new leaders. And noting that they are starting to ration gasoline (petrol) in Iran, it was noted that politicians could do this and survive, while effectively rationing using a gas tax would likely get them fired.

In response to a question as to why, with North America being post-gas peak, natural gas prices were down, the answer was given that although it is becoming difficult to license new coal-fired power plants in the USA, the weather has led to storage being filled, we are going into an anticipated warm winter, and with some additional LNG having gone to the USA this summer, rather than to Europe it is currently in surplus. However the LNG situation is likely to become a fair bit more complex by 2012.

Again it was here that Professor Pang noted that China is dropping CTL, apart from running the odd experiment, since the needs for alternate uses of coal, which China now needs to import, and the poor EROI of the Fischer-Tropsch process has led them to conclude they are better chasing alternate uses.

The proceedings drew to a close with Kjell Aleklett the President of ASPO summarizing the day. He doubted that we would make the 100 mbdoe, and noted that, to the public Peak Oil may be considered as a crocodile – nothing but a dozing log until suddenly we’re toast.

For the evening we were graciously hosted at the County Hall, being piped into the hall by Scottish bagpipes, and then, together with welcoming remarks from Jim Barry, we enjoyed a very pleasant dinner (I was surprised to eat the best boiled tatties of my life) and after songs and dances from Ireland, we retired – in my case to compose your report.

To be continued .. . . .

The link to professor peng is broken (and other links)

Fixed, I think.

(HO, your HTML sucks. *laugh* Don't use the crooked quote marks in your URLs for the a hrefs!)

Shenhua to start trial run of China's first CTL plant in 2008

China's largest coal company Shenhua Group will launch operation of the country's first coal-to-liquids plant next year using its self-developed direct coal liquefaction technology, the official Xinhua news agency reported Sunday.

Regarding Russia, a recent Reuters report showed that Russian crude oil exports (I don't know about total liquids) were down at a rate of 9.2% per year, from Q3 2006 to Q3 2007.

The Alfa Bank report (July, 2007):
Tuesday, July 10, 2007. Issue 3695. Page 5.
The Moscow Times: Alfa Report Sees Trouble Looming in Russian Oil Sector
By Anatoly Medetsky
Staff Writer

Alfa Bank warned on Monday that "production stagnation is unavoidable" at the country's oil fields and further downgraded its target prices for shares in most Russian oil companies.

The dramatic worsening in its outlook was the result of the government's reluctance to consider lowering taxes on oil firms and a higher proportion of water in the declining output, the bank said in a research report. . .

. . . The increasing proportion of water in total output was a major source of concern, the bank's analysts wrote. This causes a quickening in the rate of natural production decline at most fields.

If the Russian HL plot (using data through 1984 to generate the model) is even close to correct, Russia is about to show a horrific net export decline rate.

FSU oil export is one thing (scary enough on it's own), but how about FSU natural gas exports.

Any new data @ ASPO on that?

Or is it too inflammable to handle for us Europeans (assumption: we are toast when FSU NatGas exports start to tank)?

Wow! This idea of tradable rations is taking off. Two forms are in this post. Here is my take on it. Black_dog's take is linked there and George Monbiot's as well. Now Douthwaite and Flemming have proposals. I'd like to see a side-by-side comparision of all of them to see the commonalities and differences. Flemming and Monbiot seem to have ideas about giving industry or government shares that they don't have to justify though Fleming seems interested in having industry pay in a bid system. Swanson (Black_dog), Douthwaite and I see a completely bottom up approach with each consumer energy decision being made completely clear via the rations: no upper level subsidies that hide energy use in price. I think that Swanson, Monbiot, Douthwaith and I insist that this be about carbon rather than energy while Flemming suggests using this for any scarce fuel (uranium?).

Does anyone see other differences? Is the name Icecaps OK?


Chris, thanks for the "plug".

I've thought about rationing for a number of years, but not in a serious fashion. I still have a lot to learn on the subject, even though, as an engineer, I've been concerned about energy issues for more than 35 years. For example, I was unaware that the U.S. had a Standby Gasoline Rationing Plan in place since 1980. Here's a link:

Or, one can go back to King Hubbert's early works with the Technocrats:

Here's another article on "Energy Certificates" from the Technocratic Society--dated 1938: Note that this was a time before Socialism and other utopian economic systems had taken on the negative connotations found in today's neocon world:

One obvious sticking point is the distribution to various industries, where some energy intensive industries, such as primary metals, might find it difficult to produce their products if their consumption was directly rationed according to some formula. Distributing the rations to the final consumer, i.e., the people, makes it possible to link the consumption of all of industry's energy directly to the final demand.

Every day, people make many billions of decisions about consuming energy, but they may not be aware that they are doing so. Everything we do, from the time the alarm clock rings until we turn out the lights at bed time involves decisions involving the use of energy. Even during our sleep, our machines provide electricity or heat to keep us comfortable. The energy tax approach buries the tax in the overall price. A tax based "ration by price" system would continue to hide the real energy consumption impact of these activities from the individual, as the resulting increase in taxes would be added to all other costs to calculate a price at the final point of sales. If folks really understood what these choices meant in terms of energy consumption, I can only hope that they would act to reduce their individual use of fossil fuels (or carbon) and change their way of living for a healthier Earth.

E. Swanson

Here is one of the coupons that Phil Sharp spoke of burning during the Reagan administration. I'm not sure if the plan you linked to is the same but I think it is. The rations were printed but not used. As you can see, these are not tradable rations because they are tied to the licence plate number. Here is the wiki on the 73 crisis.


"One obvious sticking point is the distribution to various industries, where some energy intensive industries, such as primary metals, might find it difficult to produce their products if their consumption was directly rationed according to some formula."

I commend to you the information available at . I enjoyed your comments linked to through mdsolar's article, and think that you would find the resolution of the above important issue there. If you have any further comments to add on it the newly-launched forum there will provide you with quick access to the TEQs team.

"tradeable rations" = oil futures

Yes and no. At any given time there is finite production and we use money to figure out who gets that production. Trading in futures is part of how that is done. With rations, we set demand below potential supply by deciding in advance that no more than say 80% of current use will be avaliable to use in say four years. Since demand is well below potential supply, price drops. It is the inverse of the current cartel system where supliers manipulate prices by manipulating supply. In this case demand is manipulated. Lowering the cost of fuel frees up funds to invest in alternatives while the rationing also motivates the demand for alternatives. Here is my outline again. The next post gives a science based motivation for doing things this quickly.


Hi mdsolar, it is indeed taking off. I am on the UK government's (DEFRA) advisory panel on "Personal Carbon Allowances" and there is tentative talk of 2011-2012 as a potential target date for implementation.

I also work with David Fleming's Lean Economy Connection, and he first published his model of TEQs in 1996, so it's not a new model, although it has been worked up and refined somewhat in that time (in small part by myself over the past year).

In terms of your request for direct comparisons, earlier this year I engaged in an online discussion on Cap and Share's website on the differences between the two schemes, which is available here:

Since Monbiot recommends TEQs (although he didn't necessarily understand it fully when he wrote Heat), his perspective is effectively covered there too. If you want to understand the detail of TEQs all the information is available at , and there is a newly launched forum there if you have any further inputs/questions. Chris Vernon over at Oil Drum Europe also did an article on it a year or so ago:

To clear up a couple of points I will quickly mention though that there is nothing in TEQs that gives industry or government free shares - only individuals get an Entitlement, while industry and Government must purchase quotas at auction (the Tender) to cover their energy needs. Also it should perhaps be made clear that FEASTA's Cap and Share proposal does not ration individuals' energy use at all, but is rather an upstream limit on the total amount of energy (measured in potential carbon emissions) allowed into the economy.

This seems like it is becoming well developed. The difference I see is that I envision the cost in carbon to be tagged to each banana or apple at the store so you know what each thing you do means in terms of carbon use. But, once the rations are tradable, there is nothing really to stop the bidding from folding all that information back into price. So, very likely, things will work out the way you see it, with rations being used on fuel purchases and electricity, but with extra personal rations sold for the use of industry and government. But, so long as we know who is buying how much, we have some idea about which industries are making good progress.

I'm going to suggest that for consumer goods labeling be employed to indicate how many rations were used to bring the things to the stores. Then, we each would have a choice available about buying a high carbon or a low carbon apple even though the carbon information is otherwise convolved into the price since we already sold the rations to get the apple there. I was at a stand today where there was box (about a third of a bushel) of apples for 8 dollars and one for 18 dollars. They came from the same trees but the 8 dollar box had been sorted for use by hunters to lead deer to a blind. They mostly had worms or other bruises. You could tell the difference by sight as well as price. With the carbon use, you'd need something more though in the case of those particular apples the carbon use was minimal since the orchard was not far from the stand. The meat they'll yield will be low carbon use as well. But, you can't sell venison so rations won't touch that meal.


Professor Pang the founder of ASPO-China. He noted that China had peaked in oil production in 2005.

I don't understand why is saying that, there is no apparent peak so far in China's production (looking at the EIA or IEA):

2003 3.408 mbpd
2004 3.485
2005 3.608
2006 3.686
2007 3.722

Perhaps he means something like onshore production.

Perhaps he means something like onshore production.

$80/bl oil and no demand destruction yet

I saw a report on one of the MSM channels saying that people are electing to preserve their credit cards over preserving their homes/mortgages.

In other words they would rather be late on their mortgage than delinquent on their credit card. This a reversal from past trends where people who are short on cash flow go delinquent on their credit cards first and try to preserve their home.

Maybe that is why we are still not yet seeing demand destruction due to rising gasoline prices?

In suburbia, gasoline is essential to short term existence. One has to be able to drive to the job, to the super markets, just to keep living day to day. Any thoughts?

maybe it's just that we're so f-ing wealthy...

I mean, there was that story from a few weeks ago that said $4.50/gal was the inflection point of behavior--which STILL seems amazing to me.

Of course, with all the liquidity that's now just laying around--and of course that means it won't be peak oil that drives oil to $100, it will be the weak dollar--we're not going to know the value of much of anything soon.

Prof. Goose said
"I mean, there was that story from a few weeks ago that said $4.50/gal was the inflection point of behavior--which STILL seems amazing to me."

It's absolutely fascinating isn't it? The problem is that "macroeconomics" cannot easily grasp the complexity of facts on the ground.

I will use myself as an example. I drive 44 miles per day round trip to work at a decent paying job (by central Kentucky standards). What am I, an idiot?

I live in a paid for house. To have an equal house where I work would cost me at least $130,000 dollars in new debt, plus interest, plus higher taxes, higher living expenses in general, a far less desirable living environment, all to save about $30 dollars in Diesel fuel every week and a half, or about $700 per year. (!!) How long would it take me to justify what would be over $300,000 dollars in liability at current mortgage rates, even if I could get a mortgage? What if fuel prices doubled? Or tripled? Or quadripled? At some point down the road, with fuel 4 times the price it is now, the balance still works out to me being in debt for the rest of may natural life (unless I live to be 120 years old) to try to save $700 dollars a year in Diesel fuel at current price, or some $2800 per year if Diesel were 4 times the price. But it gets better....

I have some debt. One left over car loan until recently. When I paid it off, it saved me some $3600 dollars a year. Three credit card and consumer loan payments. I figured up the interest on all three, and (blush) I was paying out nearly $6000 per year in interest payments (!!!) I know, stupid me, the mistakes of earlier I began a dedicated debt reduction plan. Paid off one card, still the other two loans to go, but interest expense between the paid off car and the paid down debt has already reduced my yearly cash outlay by over two thousand dollars or nearly a third. By mid next year, I intend to be paid out, clean.

And take note: I am now saving, due to reduced interest payments, 3 TIMES the amount I spend yearly for Diesel fuel! And if I make my goal, by mid next year, will be saving 9 times the amount I currently spend in Diesel fuel! :-O

So as fuel went up in price, which was I better off to do? (a) Move closer to work and incur a quarter million dollars in new liability, or (b) Simply pay down debt and pay the money for the increased Diesel fuel? Mind you, all this is calculated on a car that gets just over 30 miles per gallon on Diesel, not bad, but since I am used to Diesel, finding a car that could get some 25 to 30 percent better would not be impossible. And I don't live in suburbia, I live in the freakin' country!

For me, the problem is NOT economic, and it is not for most people in America. The problem is political and philosophical....greenhouse gas, pouring money into the hands of our enemies, depleting a valuable and irreplacable resource. It bothers me. But from an economic viewpoint, even at my low station in life, Diesel could go to $10 or $12 per gallon, and I would be better off paying down debt than trying to reduce my daily work commute.

There is one more little issue hanging out there: Security of supply. As long as the issue is price, I can cringe, curse and bear it. But if the Diesel stopped flowing, I would be FORCED to change fast. But, would I rather have to change with money in the bank than with nothing? Of course, and that is why for now, again, the best game is "pay and play", that is, pay at the pump and pay down debt, and play the commuter game....soon, I will be able to have enough money in bonds and interest bearing notes to let the interest pay for my fuel....but if that happens, how will I ever be able to justify the end of the daily commute financially? Now replay all the above, with an electric car that gets 60 mile range (not at all undoable with todays technology) or a plug hybrid getting some 125 per gallon (doable on the range I drive). It is demonstrable that transportation creates wealth, pure and simple. By giving me greater range and choice in housing and jobs, I can save more than I spend in almost any real world example I can conjure up, by being able to move about.
The macroeconomists have problems quantifying this simple fact, as do the "back to the bicycle" gang. They are happy that they are not spending money on oil and gasoline. But they are spending money, MUCH MORE money, on increased housing costs, taxes, lack of personal security, and worst of all, interest on debt, which dwarfs the cost of oil, even if it were to go to European style prices (this helps explain why despite high fuel prices, Europe is still relatively prosperous by world standards.

This is why I find myself rolling on the floor in laughter every time I read one of James Howard Kunstler's screeching fits about how suburbia will soon be an abandoned shell, empty of residents, abondoned quarter million dollar homes due gas??? No matter how you stack the numbers, until the last of the last of the last oil is dribbled out, economically, it just does not make sense.

My bet: The big banks, with their 28% credit cards, bleeding the U.S. to death far faster than the oil price, will be gone before suburbia will.


You are looking at the micro level, which is valid.

But at the macro level, the US will have less oil to burn, year after year. ELM + the US % of world imports is likely to shrink. Peak Oil is peak world oil production (however defined). Exports will fall faster than total world oil production, and the USA will get a smaller % of total world imports. A shrinking % of a shrinking #.

How to reconcile the micro with the macro ? (A resolution WILL be found !)

I suggest in a 3rd dimension, your job disappears and with it your need to commute and burn diesel.

Alternatives are that you find a smaller condo near work that is worth less than your paid for house (at prices when you trade). You pocket the profits tax-free from your old home and use the surplus to pay down credit cards. Or rent a spare room 4 nights/week near work from "someone" and spend weekends @ home.

One way or the other, the "Invisible Hand" will reconcile macro and micro. Even if it takes $25/gallon to do so.

Best Hopes for Economic Activity not declining TOO much Post-Peak Oil,


BTW, you underestimate the herd instinct when it comes to Americans and housing

Here is one macroeconomic scenario:
The cost of oil on the world market goes up as the US dollar collapses. Heating oil distributors attempt to raise prices to compensate, but this is stopped by governments worried about granny freezing to death over the harsh winter. They run short of oil, granny freezes to death, oil distributors go bankrupt. Massive lawsuits all around. US dollar collapses some more. People buy space heaters to compensate. The grid goes down too.

Some brave governors/legislatures/illuminati see the writing on the wall and allow market forces to operate. Electricity goes to $1/kWh (today's dollars--maybe $10, maybe $100 in the new US Peso).

Low interest rates keep the economy from collapsing into a recession, but real interest is low and there is massive inflation. Bonds are worthless. Pensioners are screwed and are forced back into the workforce, selling McMacaroni&Ketchup(TM) for obscene prices. Any help the government tries to give just causes further US dollar collapse until indexing ceases. People become as dirt poor as the stereotypical '50s hillbilly with the red long underwear with the holes in the knees.

Eventually, Halliburton's camps are full of rioters/criminals/ Republocrats/insurgents. Things get so bad that everyone is relieved when things start running again. Except the campers.

"McDonald's--slightly better than death" never catches on as a slogan.

Hey ThatsIt,

You forgot the huge tax write-off for large vehicles (total gross weight exceeding 6000lbs). Gas could be $5 per gallon and it would still be cheaper to drive one of these than a Prius if you have your own business.

The issue I have is that high gas prices are going to effect the poor disproportionately.

The other caveat is that the price could jump to $30 just as easily as it could go to $4 or $5 if getting enough supply becomes a problem.



Nicely reasoned. I sense a fellow list-maker and compulsive
calculator user.

For obvious reasons demand for petrol/diesel is highly
inelastic, and people will give up almost anything else
rather than reduce their car usage.

My wife and I are pensioners, and do not even begin to qualify as being wealthy, but are entirely free of debt.
Our elderly Mercedes gives just over 20 mpg, and we usually
drive about 3,000 miles per year= 150 gallons(Imperial) p.a.
costing approx. £55 per month.
A small diesel car or Toyota Prius (2009 model) would give 50 mpg= 60 gallons, so even £100 ($200) per gallon would be
easily affordable at £500 per month. Even doubling our
mileage to 6,000 p.a. would not cause any financial strain.

If this would be possible for people like us, then the rich
could continue to drive large vehicles, and flying private
planes. However society would most probably be collapsing
about our ears, with the resultant loss of pension funds,
which would remove my wife and myself from the ranks of oil

Rationing will be the only answer with essential services
given priority, and leisure driving probably forbidden.

Makes me glad that I already have 50 years of driving in
many different countries already accomplished.

Mr Toad,

I notice something else....why is that all of us compulsive calculators end up in elderly Mercedes, Alan Drake, this a symptom we should worry about? :-)


Rationing will be the only answer with essential services
given priority, and leisure driving probably forbidden.

Americans will turn their children into sex slaves and sell them to their senators for extra cash to pay for gas before they cut back on their driving.

step back,
You can live in your car but you can't drive your house to work. Also, many sub-prime debtors are well aware of the difficulties of foreclosing on someone's homestead. In many, if not all states a foreclosure takes a minimum of 4 months, while cutting off a credit card can be as quick as a month late. If you'll put on your reading glasses and squint you'll see that an unsecured creditor can cancell your card at any time for any reason, including being behind on other payments.

Also, if you'll check with the local charities you will find that many grants are written to "prevent homelessness". There are often grants available to catch people up on their mortgage, but none available for credit cards even if gasoline is essential to get back and forth to the greeter's job at Walmart.Bob Ebersole

It could be that subconsciously these people are underwater on the house, and they are preparing themselves mentally for foreclosure. And once you decide to let the house go, there isn't any point in paying the mortgage any more, is there...

People will not be able to change their lifestyles because they are so tightly controled by the hand to mouth style living brought about by the the availability of cheap credit, which is in essence a more expensive form of money, as you have to pay the creditor to spend it. The downward spiral this creates in terms of household income can not be reversed, and as prices increase the hamsters need to run ever faster for ever longer, thus never being able to stop until the end.

In other words they would rather be late on their mortgage than delinquent on their credit card.

I do not think the mortgage industry has discovered 'default rates' that are punitive. Some credit cards have 33% default rates.

The Chinese growth in auto consumption is particularly alarming. Their gasoline is subsidized and regular price increases to ration scarce supply were lacking in China.

The waste in the United States is alarming with people suffering long commutes and living in huge houses that are inefficient to heat and cool. Saving for the future might be prudent as Benjamin Frnaklin testified. Many people were flounting their wealth around town; it was not yet paid for. The new bankruptcy laws are stricter. If someone loses a house in foreclosure, what is stop the creditors from ceasing the IRA, the cars, anything else they want?

Carbon rationing could work politically. For example electricity could be subject to tiered or step pricing. Set the base level on what it takes to run a small fridge, TV, flat screen puter and other basic appliances. Per person this should come out maybe 6-10 kwh per day. The pool heater, aircon, icemaker, jacuzzi etc will have to be on the next level, say double the baseline kwh charge. Or maybe they could be on remote radio control by the utility.

Same goes for fuel eg if you're not a farmer or contractor you don't need a large pickup. The service station will know by the dirt on the paintwork.
Saudi ban drives women to rebel
IN AN increasingly equality-conscious world it is almost a miracle it
has remained unchallenged so long. Saudi Arabian women are heading for
a collision with the country's ultra-conservative religious
establishment over a 17-year-old official ban that prevents them from
driving vehicles.

Gasoline has to be at about $4.00-4.50/gal to be at the same % of discretionary household income it was at back in 1979/80 when Americans did curb their consumption. As long as the price ratchets up in easy steps, people can adjust, which may allow it to go higher before there is much response. Gasoline consumption is up a little less than 1% ytd vs 2006, but only o.4% in the last couple of months, so price may be having some impact. Diesel consumption OTH is up a whopping 15%. Murray

George Lee and Peak Oil in Irish Media
For those of you who missed the OilDrum's coverage of George Lee's programme about Peak Oil on the national TV station, RTE of Ireland, it was covered here:

RTE (Ireland) with a High Quality Peak Oil Documentary: Future Shock

And in fact, it was an excellent documentary.

Also as part of the press coverage for the first day of the coverage, the national radio broadcaster on Monday, interviewed Campbell and the new Green Party minister for Energy Eamon Ryan, who discussed Peak Oil.

I am posting a link to another comment thread where I put them on Monday which summarizes what was said and links to the podcast.

RTE - pah! Some journos were there at the start init!! ;) :)

Hope everyone is having a a nice time in Cork.