Another Inconvenient Truth - A presentation you can download
Posted by Gail the Actuary on October 30, 2007 - 8:00am
There are now several movies about peak oil that a person can show to audiences who are new to the subject. But sometimes it would be helpful to have a "canned" PowerPoint presentation, or a set of prepared PDF handouts that you can discuss with newcomers or use for your own talks. In this post, I link to a short PowerPoint presentation that is intended to be an introduction to newcomers. I also offer a two-per-page handout version, that may be helpful for one-on-one discussions.
I cannot really show what the presentation looks like in HTML, but I will give the flavor of the content in the post.
Another Inconvenient Truth An Introduction to Peak Oil
October 2007
TheOilDrum.com
The US was once the leader in world oil production
But US oil production began to decline in 1970
No one told the public about the decline • US oil decline gave rise to the oil problems of the 1970s - OPEC, embargo
• Decline continues, year after year
• Decline occurred even with improving technology
• We began to import more oil and moved to a "service"economy
• Truth was too embarrassing to tell
One by one, other sites have begun to decline also
Soon, world oil production will begin to decline • Date not yet certain
• Association for the Study of Peak Oil-USA says "Before 2015"
• Case Western Reserve survey of oil experts says "highly likely" by 2010
• Several experts say 2005 or 2006
• Data suggests peak may be past
Peak may have occurred about the time of Hurricane Katrina (2005)
Where is oil used? • Transportation - cars, buses, trucks
• Food - planting and harvesting, processing, refrigeration, transportation
• Raw materials - asphalt, building materials, clothing, pharmaceuticals
• Energy source - manufacturing
Rough estimates of future world oil production - if peak is now
Sources of data for previous graph • Historical: US energy Information Administration
• Symmetric: Assumes future production will be mirror image of past
• Analyst average: Average of close-date projections by Ace, Bakhtiari, and Robelius
Future US oil supply will depend on level of imports
Level of future US oil imports is very uncertain • Imports likely to decline faster than world oil supply
- Exporters supply themselves first
- Hoarding; civil unrest
• US may be unable to purchase oil
- Balance of payments issues
- Will exporters take more IOUs?
With less oil, real GDP is likely to decline
Why weren't we told? • We weren't told when US production peaked.
• Can we expect to be warned before world production peaks?
• Declining economies are embarrassing.
Will technology save the day? • Technology didn't prevent the decline in US oil production.
• Technology didn't prevent the decline in North Sea oil production.
• Should we expect it to prevent a decline in world oil production?
Is there an easy solution? • No, not really.
• Conservation is a partial solution.
• Alternative fuels (solar, wind, biofuels, geothermal) are likely to provide some help.
• New technology like battery-operated cars is likely to be too little, too late.
• We may need to unwind globalization; go back to simpler life-styles, technologies that worked before.
Download Presentation
To download this presentation as a PDF handout (2 slides per page), click here. If you are uncertain which file to download, this is probably the better choice. It does not require PowerPoint software, and is not as large a file.
To download this presentation as a PowerPoint presentation, click here.
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Thanks, Gail - a very helpful tool for PO outreach. Simple, straightforward. Let people draw conclusions in ensuing discussion. I'd put in another slide or two on oil consumption patterns to drive home the points of: high US consumption, increasing dependence on imports, transportation gobbling the lion's share.
Gail,
I really appreciate your considered, non-alarmist approach to peak oil and climate change. This is a lot more likely to get people to see that there is an actual problem and that evefor use in outreach?ryone's efforts will be required to acheive the change to sustainable, renewable energy sources.
How about putting this together with your pamplet for a package we can use in outreach? Bob Ebersole
I do not like the non-alarmist aproch. If you do that you will have to one day tell them the un-censored truth aboput the situation. a few might find it on their own but the majority will cling to the nice happy vision you gave them even when the cold hard 'alarmist' world shows it's ugly head.
The problem with an alarmist approach is it will get you ignored by the mainstream. If the purpose is to reach as many people as possible, it is best to break it to them gently and avoid being accused of "scaremongering".
Clint
Better to be truthfull up-front and be called a fool then to be lynched later when the public realizes you lied.
The End of Suburbia film is difficult to take, because it lays out the problem so clearly.
It seems like a person can take a slightly less extreme approach, and get to the same result. The discussion after the presentation can go as far as the audience and presenter are comfortable.
yes but neither does it suger coat it by dismissing logical outcomes. For example it doesn't really go into much depth as to what would happen to the rest of the economy as a whole when the suburbs have to be abandonded, though at the same time it doesn't go on and say that won't happen because (insert wishfull thinking here).
Yes it's all just rhetoric.
Who here has any inkling of what the world would like like the day after everyone became peak oil aware?
I'll tell you what won't happen.
Everyone will immediately begin to conserve.
There won't be any runs on gas stations, banks or food outlets.
Business will continue business as usual, they will look for and immediately purchase alternative energy supplies.
There will be plenty of alternative energy machines for everyone.
There will be no hoarding or panic.
The economy will remain stable, consumer goods will remain in good supply and price stable.
Governments will be lauded for their honesty.
I'll give you a hint of what will happen though.
Those able to, will do what every one of us on TOD who has accepted the consequences of peak oil, has been doing over the last few years.
If everyone all of a sudden began their own mitigation attempts like we have...............
That is why governments don't come clean. What have they to gain? Nothing in the short term and the long term is not a concern to them.
It is best to dig the well before you are thirsty.
but i don't think you get to the same result
you get to a place where a raised number of people think "hey there's some sort of issue here... but heck, i need to sort out the bills and i have work on and... yeah - i'll think about this when i get the time..."
I think people who favour this less extreme approach often tend to be a smarter than average, thoughtful and reflective. Understandably they project such a mindset onto others, and assume that if they present a compelling argument others will think it through like they did... but we just don't live in that world. Possibly some societies. Not the US. People are trained throughout their lives to a completely different style of discourse, and they filter any communication through this life's experience.
Think of all of the political policy issues that seem just self-evident in terms of their common sense - you look at the evidence, and OBVIOUSLY the decision should be X, but instead it's Y.
And just how well did the reflective, polite, reasoned argument work out for the Global Warming debate?
--
All these memories will be lost in time
like tears in rain
I do not think so much of myself that people will just blindly follow me. I will have a hard enough time of convincing people of the problem, let alone deciding on a solution.
The goal should be to educate and make suggestions, let people decide for themselves what should be done. There are specialists who excel in this sort of thing. The relevant subject is called Risk Management.
I do not purport to be any kind of leader, but I have studied some basic principles. I certainly don't need to worry about being lynched.
Leadership may carry risks, but it is what we need now more than anything else.
Clint
TrueKaiser,
It is your opinion that the alarmist approach is the true approach. I think that predicting the ecological collapse and extinction of the planet is more than a little overdone and further that it will let many people ignore the true situation which is dire, but not unimproveable. I think that within 10 years the USA will be able to produce and buy approximately 40% of the current oil consumption in the US and keep that up for the foreseeable future.
So if a family is prudent and switches their personal transportation to electric or hybrid, gets solar or microhydro or persnal wind, and cuts consumption through insulation and more reasonable size living areas they may be in very good shape.Get out of debt.
And don't forget to produce. Ther's going to be a lot more jobs designing and installing small scale solar systemsthan as a manager for a retail store . Turn your flower beds into your greengrocer. Make friends with your neighbors-they're your best bet to carpool with to the grocery or a local job. Who's going to watch your property when the cops have reduced patrols? And I guarantee they are a lot more fun than watching Nancy Grace or Glen Beck trash mouth another group of people. Tjhis is westexas'ELP program, economise , localise, produce, and it makes good sense.
Bob Ebersole
Probably when Reader's Digest does a story we will know the word is out.
Has anybody submitted or is considering submitting a story to RD?
That is an idea! A person would have to figure out a way to frame the story for the masses.
The problem is, I don't think the alarmist approach works. The public either thinks you are a Chicken Little extremist nutjob saying the sky is falling, or even if they do believe you the problem just looks overwhelmingly big so they just turn their back on it and hope you are wrong.
To me the best option we have is to introduce them to the background of the problem and let them figure out or discover it's implications over time. Granted, we don't really have the time to waste. We should be doing things now. But a slow introduction seems to be the most viable option we have in my opinion.
A time will come when governments will have no choice but to explain the reality. Once line ups at gas stations start, once the price drive past $100/B like a Ferrari on a highway, they will have little choice but to explain to the public what depletion is and what it will mean.
You definitely want to be pepared before that announcement.
Richard Wakefield
London, Ont.
No one is ahead of their time, just the rest of humanity is slow to catch on.
Thata the problem with the gentle aproch, fram the situation as a problem and nothing meaning full will get done. frame the situation as it actually is, a shift in the enviroment needing a aproprite shift in how we live, most likely back to a pre-industrial lifestyle and population. then you make the problem worse.
I don't argue that there is no place for alarmist messages. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists wouldn't have the Doomsday clock if that were the case. But only certain people are going to be effective with this type of message, based on their qualifications and the evidence. More likely is that you and I are simply going to be dismissed as wackos with the message you want to tell people.
The goal is to get people to work together for solutions, not have them cower in fear or panic. You can explain the risks and let them make the decisions on what actions should be taken, a group will usually come up with better answers than individuals anyway.
But if you've given up on working with anybody there's no point in arguing further. Its your choice to make.
You guys and gals can go on making presentations, alarmist or otherwise, until the cows come home and it won't make any difference. Human beings will still keep on consuming nonrenewable resources and over-reproducing just as they have been. The only people with the resouces to mitigate the problem and avoid the worst case scenarios are the wealthy. But most of them are adicted to their lifestyles and making money so probably there's nothing we can do. Try to enjoy yourself while you can.
And tell me how is that different from just giving up?
If everybody thought like that we would still have slavery and segregation, women wouldn't be able to vote, there would be no ozone layer, we would be choking and dying from pollution, no thought given to addressing climate change, etc...
I think it is wrong it say that the leadership is unresponsive to the citizens. Quite the opposite in fact, they usually like to be re-elected. If we can reach enough of the constituency and educate them there is hope.
Therefore I reject the suggestion that the nature of the presentation is irrelevant. The opposite is true - it should be geared to reach as many people as possible.
Clint
Your underlying assumption is that the situation is salvageable, that civilization can be "saved" by actions ranging from mild to extreme. Consider for one moment the hypothetical case in which civilization cannot be saved at all, under any circumstance. How would that change your response?
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Dr. Albert Bartlett
Into the Grey Zone
Greyzone,
Thanks for responding. Please forgive me if I ramble a bit, I will have to think out loud here. This is not my underlying assumption. I would adjust my plans and expectations based on current conditions. If the social structure, communication, and transportation disintegrates then obviously I will be limited to working with people who are close to me. My underlying assumption is that it is better to work together than work alone, humans are social creatures and groups are more effective than individuals.
However, as long as we have the benefits in communication, structured society, and transportation we should avail ourselves of them. I do not think so much of myself that I have the truth of what the future holds. I do not discount any possibility entirely, although I think some outcomes are more probable than others.
I would agree that if everyone threw up their hands and did nothing to correct the situation we will be in for some serious problems. But I don't expect this to be the case.
More fundamental perhaps is whether I believe we should try to save civilization. I have read Azimov too, and can understand the idea of controlled collapse. I have read Richard Duncan's Olduvai theory and understand the premise of energy shortages giving rise to a collapse of civilization. I can understand the risks that complexity and resource depletion bring. I can understand overpopulation and carrying capacity. I can understand people's frustration at society for not reflecting their Values.
But what I don't understand is the idea that we shouldn't go down fighting. We should work together to achieve the best possible outcome.
[edited to correct spelling and indicate my awareness of other risks]
Clint
At this point I would recommend listening to music. One of my favorites on this subject is "Two cents worth" by Kansas on their Masque album.
But what I don't understand is the idea that we shouldn't go down fighting. We should work together to achieve the best possible outcome.
Clint,
I agree with you absolutely. The incredibly defeatist attitude expressed my so many posters on TOD is very frustrating to me. Look at the situation in Bolivia where massive unemployment and economic misery for the masses have existed for many years, and instead of the bringing about a fascist dictatorship or a civil war, widespread civil disobedience has brought about genuine social and political change. Whether or not a truly effective democratic, cooperative form of economic production can be achieved there or elsewhere remains to be seen. But if we simply throw up our hands and assume that human being are zombie morons and therefore refuse to think about and discuss the kinds of social changes needed, then a small chance of intelligent action becomes exactly zero.
Roger
[deleted]
Roger,
Thanks for your support. I am hoping to expose this way of thinking for what it is.
Clint
that civilization can be "saved"
What "we" have "grown up with" as "civilization" will be "gone".
The end points seem to be an environment where humans can still be viable on this planet.
OK Nostradamus, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. I'll take it for what it's worth.
Clint
I am not optimistic we're going to do much of anything. I'm also in favor of telling people, as quickly as possible, about the seriousness of this situation, because the strategies we've employed in the past for "changing minds" have often been really very long-term, and I'm of the belief that's not a luxury we have right now.
However, as somebody who basically feels we're f*cked, I don't mind other people taking other strategies and trying as well because, hell, maybe something they'll do will work.
I don't understand the cheerier attitude of "everything will be ok 'if only' or 'when we' do [this or that] because I don't see much evidence we're about to really do [this or that] in almost every case it's presented.
Rather than EVER using the word "solution" about peak oil, I use mitigation.
"What is the solution for air?" or "What is the solution for rocks?" makes about as much sense to me.
Having been an "activist" off and on for 30 years, I also know what beating my head against a wall that is not about to crumble feels like. People should do what they feel they have to, it's good for something that makes them feel useful, but I worry if they don't approach it with an honest assessment of how likely they are to succeed, they're maybe not doing themselves a good service.
I know people who are chronic overachievers with their personal energy, underachievers in what it's accomplished, but they seem to be able to pound their head against the wall a lot better and longer than I am able to do.
If we who are marginalized by those calling us "doomers" are wrong (and I'm not a perfect Kinsey 6 on the doomer scale, probably somewhat bi-fatalist), I know I'm glad to be wrong.
Dennis,
Thank you for a thoughtful response. I agree with the use of the word 'mitigation' rather than 'solution'.
I am not saying that "everything will be OK".
What I am saying is that the constant barrage of hopelessness and despair is damaging our effectiveness.
Clint
Thanks, Clint,
People somehow need to deal with their emotions about this (here I go sounding like a pop psychologist; rest assured I don't watch Doctor Phil). I imagine the therapy part of TOD is equally as important to a lot of the regular posters/readers here as is the information.
Since everybody has a different idea of how this will play out and/or how quickly descent will happen, it is not at all surprising that people end up with differing opinions on what information is most important and what will be the most effective means of getting "there." I'm not convinced either approach is really doing much. I've learned a lot about that bugaboo, "human nature," I apparently never needed to know before I learned about peak oil.
I go back and forth on how much and how soon to tell people more of "the full story" as I see it. I really do try to preface even the bad news with "there is likely to be a problem with..." or "what this probably (or "could") means..." when talking to people who have never before heard any of this "news."
Several years ago I was more blunt about all the potential ramifications, maybe mostly because they were new to me and I don't think I'd really accepted the impact of a lot of all it. Also this was with people I tended to already know. Well, they've all heard the spiel by now, and honestly most of them accept it, even when they do go back into denial as deeply as they can about it.
I think just because others may be sending out a barrage of hopelessness or despair (something I've done too) I don't know how it really "damages our effectiveness" since I'm not sure either side has been very effective at this point in changing anything. It is possible to somehow manage to accept both points of view, and argue calmly about the "what if's" or "what abouts" that may or may not put a dent in our own personal fantasies of what the future really will hold.
Many of us will plod on doing whatever we can to be as effective as we might considering the circumstances. The civic approach makes sense for some people (something I've been involved with, though not because I expected much if anything from it to really happen), and the survivalist mentality makes sense on a lot of levels. Relocalization is a great idea, but sometimes I think it's a bit self-centered as a cure-all approach that I hear when we're dealing with something that really does go further than our own back yards.
Sounds wishy-washy, but for now I know I don't hold any answers. So I say go for it however you have to. Whine when you need to. Talk to clueless Presidential candidates if you can. And maybe somewhere it will do some good. Let's hope so.
Oh, and most importantly, occasionally take a break from TEOTWAWKI, at least for now.
Thanks Dennis,
I appreciate your viewpoint, I certainly cannot claim to have your experience. I have had some training in communications though, and what I meant was that people are put off when they hear the end of civilization is coming and there is nothing they can do about it. It isn't helpful in gaining new supporters. Sorry that I didn't that make that clear, I had to rush off to work this morning.
I can deal with hearing this, and I agree that the more time goes by with nothing being done the more likely this is. But I know that we lose credibility when this is tossed around as casually as it is here. I suspect that the ones responsible for most of it don't have nearly your years or your experience, by the way.
What I take offense to is being told it is "a false hope" when I try to do something positive or that the only course of action is to "save yourself". I have not been posting on TOD very long, and this is how I was greeted. I am a long time reader though, and gave it a pass at first. But I am becoming of the opinion that this type of behavior needs to be called out. You are obviously not one of these people either, and have more wisdom than they do. And as for me becoming a survivalist, I have a family and am stuck working in my community. My wife dismisses concerns of TEOTWAWKI even though she reads nothing, because that is just how she is. And unfortunately so are many others. She thinks we'll all be driving electric cars. I do not. I try to be as realistic as possible, and we may not be so far apart in what we expect the future to hold.
Thus my opinion is that people should be motivated to action, not slammed for trying to do something.
I appreciate you sharing your frustration with working the civic approach, this is a constructive exchange of information and something can be learned from your experience. I hope I have better luck with it, but I'm not optimistic either. I just have to try.
I hope to talk you again sometime, I think this thread is getting pretty squeezed.
Clint
Rather than EVER using the word "solution" about peak oil, I use mitigation.
If by a “solution to peak oil” you mean an alternate energy source which would allow the stock market to go on rising for centuries into the future, of course there is no solution. Suppose that someone announced tomorrow that they had developed a low cost cold fusion process so that you could put a fusion generator into your automobile and let your grandchildren worry about refueling. Such a development would not absolve us from the necessity of coming to terms with the finite nature of the earth’s resources, although it would delay the day of ecological reckoning for a while. Peak oil or no peak oil our current global economic system is unsustainable in the long term (not to mention exploitive and unjust even in the short term), and the solutions that we need to seek require fundamental social and political change, not just clever engineering. I agree that it is unlikely that any serious transformation of the economic system will take place until a significant majority of people in the developed world understand that the current system is going to fail to provide them with material security. Many doomers maintain that once such a point is reached it will be too late to take effective action, so that chaos and war will be the only result of the widespread realization of economic failure. While I agree that a large degree of social chaos and violence will probably accompany the downfall the current global economic system, I do not believe that these negative outcomes will be the only results of that downfall. New systems of economic production and social organization will emerge and evolve rapidly. If we have any hope that these system will be democratic and cooperative rather than authoritarian and repressive, it behooves us to spend time thinking about what kinds of social institutions will be conducive the creation and maintenance of sustainable community wealth rather than to the competitive accumulation of private wealth.
I am with you...
...I think the rationalist non-alarmist approach assumes a level of reflection and consideration that in reality the message will not receive in the media age we live in.
And the facts are actually pretty darned alarming.
Finally though, is the concept of the Overton Window... where the "middle ground" of acceptable discourse is actually defined by the extremes... something the Republicans have used to great effect in US politics but that the Democratic party has repeatedly failed to get a grasp on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window (not the best explanation of the concept but it should work)
--
All these memories will be lost in time
like tears in rain
In the Overton window, I'm afraid Peak Oil is still in the "unthinkable" category for a huge number of people.
Gail,
I don't think people will have such a hard time understanding the concept of peak oil. It is just common sense that a depleting resource will eventually become limited in supply.
Its the implications of peak oil that people are going to have a hard time with. This is why I think that care should be taken not to go into too many implications before you get buy-in to the idea that peak oil is imminent.
As you are no doubt aware, most people (at least here in America) will start with a "Techno-Optimist" viewpoint and then have to be educated on why things are not that simple.
I guess this is a real balancing act. If you don't stress any implications, people will think enough is being done already and we will be all be driving electric cars or something. Become too alarmist and they will shut you out.
How do we motivate people to demand mitigation efforts be started with all the other priorities that we are competing with?
Again, good work and best of luck to you in your efforts.
Clint
By piggybacking on priorities which are also advanced by mitigation and creating coalitions with their activists. Here's a short list of possibilities off the top of my head:
R. James Woolsey is working along these lines, why aren't we giving him support and asking him likewise?
Hi EP,
Thanks for responding. I used traffic congestion to bring up the subject in our newspaper. I think this is an extremely important subject. Unfortunately, most people here don't seem to give enough credit to people in the mainstream and get too involved in their own world views to attempt an understanding of how other people might think.
Could have used you here earlier to get a little more objectivity into the debate. Unfortunately this subject got pushed down pretty rapidly and not too many people are listening anymore.
Hope to talk to you about this in further detail sometime. I'm going on vacation and may not be available for a few days.
Clint
http://science.reddit.com/info/5zcrh/comments/
we hope you will help Gail spread this around to as many people as can take it...:)
Nice way of putting that for the average person it's back to walking or animal transport to a un-electrified house from their feilds which they maintain for the rich/king/governer/warlord/etc. their house won't have central air, to cool it they will have to open windows and to heat it whty will have to have a indoor fireplace. Only the afor mentioned groups will be able to afford or get their hands on the stuff we enjoy right now.
Quite the optomist aren't you? Actually to a certain degree this is location dependent. The northwest, for example, has a high percentage of electricity generated from renewable sources. We could lose all oil and natural gas imports and maintain 70% of our electricity capacity. This of course assumes we maintain the grid (or update it accordingly) and manage to survive the civil strife and such that will undoubtably sweep the country.
Transportation is going to be the real problem up here. Conservation is much more natural to most of the residents but even they will have a hard time accepting very low fuel supplies.
On the other hand, the southeast (I grew up a Floridian) is screwed and miserable.
Daniel
Aerospace Engineer
Everett, Washington - Cascadia
Do you seriously believe that the US northwest can continue indefinitely without imports of other essentials that come from regions that rely on oil? An electrical system is not just copper wiring. There are all manner of complex devices from the generating station to the substation not far from your house. And almost all of these components are produced in limited quantities in remote locations far from the US northwest. In order to continue, the US northwest would have to become a manufacturing center for all these components. But to make those components requires that you have the machinery to make them. And that means the US northwest must then become a manufacturer of the machinery as well. Do you see where this is going? The US northwest would have to become a "stovepipe" economy, producing everything it needs, if it expects to be unaffected by the decline of oil. Does the US northwest have enough renewable energy to both supply all or its inhabitants and become a self-sufficient economy as well? I don't think so.
Either we solve the problem globally or we are highly unlikely to solve it at all.
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Dr. Albert Bartlett
Into the Grey Zone
I was actually being highly sarcastic. I'm very well aware of the switching equipment and such that makes up the power grid. What my comment meant was that the blanket saying "we're all screwed" is true but there are islands where the damage can be reduced.
Daniel
Aerospace Engineer
Everett, Washington - Cascadia
Considering renewables are at around 1% right now. also that the systems need to make and maintain them will be either non-existant or hard to get. then yea i am being a optimist that the elite/rich/warlord/kings/etc will still be able to have them.
Gail,
Thanks for putting this together.
Is there any chance that there could be a public repository on TOD created for this and other Peak Oil presentations? There was a short thread on this yesterday on Drumbeat.
we're working on it. :)
Hot diggity dog.
ASPO-USA has three years of presentations that are being put together in the format of this years archives:
http://www.aspousa.org/proceedings/houston/presentations/
These presentations are not public domain given that the presenter has a right to be cited and in some cases perhaps asked if a slide is going to be used.
In our experience most presenters are very happy to have their slides used so long as proper attribution exists.
Acceptable use includes:
- Linking to the presentation library or individual presentations;
- Downloading and emailing the presentations in PDF format;
- Using slides from the presentations with permission of the author
Great work Gail - I intend to use this when I meet with the local food network TenRivers.
I have not gone thru the whole thing yet but one aspect of PO that I find resonates with folks is the EROEI thing.
last 100 years or so 1 barrel = 100 barrels
currently 1 barrel = 10 or less barrels
Future 1 barrel = 1 barrel (oops)
People seem to understand this.
Perhaps it could be graphed? (steep decending line?)
just a thought
Cheers
souperman 2
I've been involved in oil and gas exploration since 1976, although I was sqeezed out by market coditions during the 1990's. And, I've been interested in the subject of E&P economics since around 1979 or 1980, when I realised that the economics were the true key to understanding when any particular resource was developed and therefore when I could raise money for any given prospect.
The problem with your idea of a graph for EROEI is that it has no control over the overhead of the operator, which has a big effect on the ratio.
The first oilfields were discovered through blind luck. In Iraq, Neolithic people discovered the use of oil that came out of the ground as seeps. Its sticky and water resistant, so they used the stuff to caulk boats and stick mud bricks together and waterproof them, so its always been present and used. The first refinining was done in 9th century Bagdad where an alchemist distilled keroscene, so when oil became valable it was a natural place to look.
The same kind of seeps exist in lots of other areas, Texas, Pennsylvania and California in the US. So the early elimination work of looking for places to look was done without cost or effort.
Within a few years, wildcatters established that certain age rocks were a lot more likely to have oil than others-Permian, Cretaceous,Eocene and Miocene rocks contain most of the oil, so wildcatters went to geologists to figure out where the rocks existed. It was a new science and just begining to be studied at universities. After this was successful, the companies hired their own geologists and the first level of overhead was added by the companies. As a little kid in Houston I met a number of these men. There was an old geologist on my block who had a shrunken head from Venezuela where he explored in the 1920's!
After that, frontier areas required more and more specialists that added to the overhead-lawyers and landmen to work out agreements with individuals, micropalentologists that used fossils of microscopic animals and plants to identify exact age, and geophysicists that used other indications like seismic to identify structures or downhole records to help figure out the fields.
But there were also lots of indirect overhead-political campaign donations and lobbying for favorable laws, and engineers and other production people. In other words, overhead went up exponentially and that had at least as much of an effect on profitability as the size of the fields.
So, unless your graph takes into account this overhead and graphs it with field size your statistics are not going to be useful. And, now you have my main objection with EROEI as used on The Oil Drum. Small independents have a lot larger EROEI than larger companies in the same area in the same fields. That's why westexas can do very well on stuff that was passed up by big companies because it wouldn't pay their overhead, and why I do well, the prospects I generate were abandoned early because they wouldn't justify their part of the big company overhead. Since I don't have this overehead, redevelopment of old fields is profitable for me when it would be a big money loser for a multinational.
And, unless these factors are taken into account the EROEI is not properly calculated. There's a whole lot of oil out there that will be produced at a higher price, but I'm not sure that the multinational oil companies can produce it with their current structure. They have to have new giant fields to be profitable with their current structure, and we are running short on them. Bob Ebersole
Oilmanbob - thanks for your reply.
I uunderstand all of what you say and agree, but isn't that true also with all of the annalsis here at TOD?
Is it not possible to calculate a crude median throughout history in order to get a useful visual of the concept EROI of oil?
I just think it is a fairly universaly understood metric;
I used to buy (insert consumerables here), but now I don't because it/they are too expensive.
I agree with you on your comments on EROEI.
Another issue is the question of what kind of energy. Quite a few people think we have nearly unlimited coal supply. Some even think natural gas is in abundant supply, especially when you consider the Mideast. With that background, if EROEI is low, or even below 1.0, people tend not to be concerned, because they feel that what you are doing is converting an abundant energy source to a more-usable less-abundant energy source.
While the concept is relatively easy to explain, one can quite easily get into a quagmire in this discussion. I tend to stay away from it, especially early in introductory information.
*clap* *clap* Nice post
If I may be so bold--my presentation "The Oil Crunch" (link below) seems to be exactly what people are talking about here. It's been well received when I gave it front of a mixed crowd of mainstreamers, and I've had numerous comments from people who have downloaded it and used it to help introduce others to the basic oil situation.
http://www.grinzo.com/energy/downloads/theoilcrunch09x20x2007.pdf
Yours is good, too. There is room for more than one presentation out there. Your presentation is a little longer.
I was trying to make a presentation that was as short as possible, that gets a reasonable number of points across. The discussion can answer more.
Great presentation. Thanks for posting it.
Gail, I wonder about the symmetric oil forecast line. I believe that the presentation would be better without it. Do you have a theory (e.g. Hubbert curve) or evidence for such a forecast?
Have you seen Matt Simmon's presentations here? I'm extremely impressed with his approach, both content and style.
Hi Gail,
Like many others, I am glad to see a presentation where an attempt is made to be as factual as possible and avoid being accused of "scaremongering". Thanks for the effort.
I think it important to remind people that airplanes and ships as they exist now (intercontinental travel) are also dependent on oil. This can be used to support the contention that globalization may be rolled back.
Also, I am a little uncomfortable with saying the US won't be able to purchase oil due to balance of payments and the deficit. I think it is a risk going forward, but this is likely to be controversial for some people and give them another opportunity for attacking the basic premise of peak oil. Just my opinion of course.
Despite these minor points it's a very good introduction and I will probably use it. Your work is much appreciated.
Clint
Yesterday, I was talking to someone about the oil situation after church. His response was that he did not see the world oil situation as the real problem, since it probably would be declining by only a little. He felt the real issue was the balance of payments problem, and the fact that we have been importing vastly more than we have been exporting for years, and paying in IOUs. When you put this problem together with the oil problem, we are in deep trouble.
I was surprised that a person who is does not work in a financial area would have such a response. I had not brought up the balance of payments issue - it was his thought.
If people don't understand the balance of payments issue, they might understand the declining value of the dollar, and the implications of this for future oil imports.
Gail,
Thanks for responding. I can see your point, I think a lot of us late boomers have the belief that Social Security is not going to be there for us when we retire, so I guess it's not a big jump to make. But I think the danger is there more when you approach someone who does work in the financial industry. I've been reading up on the economy since 2000, and adopted a bearish position in 2001. I haven't done well except for my investments in gold, silver, and oil. Look at how the market hit new highs recently. This is despite all the looming problems we have. I really don't what to make of it, but until the markets start to reflect reality we may not want to go there just yet.
I think the point I am trying to make is that there are "economic downturn deniers" who will attack any suggestions that US won't be able to pay for its oil. Perhaps they are related to the peak oil and climate change deniers in that they just want business as usual, and would deny peak oil is a problem no matter how you presented it. But I wouldn't make this assumption, and perhaps some people that would otherwise believe the economy will be OK are open to the idea of peak oil. My experience from being a bear and talking to others about economics is that most people are not bearish and disagree with the idea that we are in for hardship. A friend of mine is a director in a large company and thinks I am being silly for being so bearish. I just don't want to get tuned out by such people.
I hope I'm explaining myself well. It's not that I disagree, but I think that we need to careful with our message so that people won't dismiss it. A lot of policymakers have personalities that rely on their experience for decision-making. This is a necessity for people who make quick decisions. I am more of a data-collector, so this is not true for me. But I don't make quick decisions normally either. My wife though is the other type and dismisses arguments about collapse entirely, even though she doesn't read a fraction of what I read. Differences among people are a reality we have to deal with when it comes to communication, this may be a point for further discussion.
Thanks for listening,
Clint
At the ASPO meeting last week it was standing room only for both Wednesday sessions dealing with INVESTING in PO and alternative fuels. I think if when you discuss PO you wrap it in with making a buck that more people will listen to the reasons for PO to make that buck. This has been my experience to get rid of the blank stares.
Just my thoughts and experiences.
I couldn't agree more, we just need to ensure the solutions are well thought out and deserving of investment. Lots of controversy here, but unbiased expert opinions will help. We just need people to focus on the problem, which will be difficult with all the competing priorites. But a solution that addresses several problems will have an advantage if one can be found.
I am hestitant to pick a winner here, but it's interesting to note where Warren Buffet put his money.
Clint
Adding a section on investments is an interesting idea. I think it is a little ahead of this introductory presentation, however.
I think there are a lot of different ways different people might go with investments, depending on their view of where the future is headed, and how quickly:
1. Invest in small tools and seed, and training for yourself on how to grow food in your locality. Encourage your neighbors to get involved too.
2. Invest in guns, ammunition, canned food, and solar panels.
3. Invest in gold coins, silver coins, and tradable goods.
4. Purchase long-dated oil futures. Short stocks of companies that are very oil dependent.
5. Invest in certain alternative energy companies, and some companies that will benefit from redevelopment of US oil and gas fields.
6. Buy land in an area that has good soil and is likely to have good rain fall.
7. Pay down debt.
If you want to discuss investments along with this presentation, I guess that is up to you. My own inclination would be to give a broader perspective on the types of investment that one might consider. ASPO did this to some extent in Houston. You probably can maximize the audience size by focusing on something like "How you can make money speculating in long-dated oil futures." I am not sure this is the investment direction I would recommend, however.
Good work, Gail, and good list of investments. I don't have a lot of faith in gold or the investment system, however, because of the outliers on the unprinted chart of Logistics. Gold will be worthless if there isn't enough food to go around.
Hungry people don't pay, and hoarders don't sell.
The more immediate outliers are these: Blowup in Nigeria, leading to production stoppage. Blowup in Saudi Arabia, War in Iran, leading to closure of the Strait of Hormuz, collapse of the dollar or hyperinflation due to hidden factors in the financial system.
Open revolt due to the NAFTA highway plan.
Hell, I'm on the verge now, considering the number of things the government is lying about.
There are no feedback loops controlling the Cabal anymore. They used to care about our production of goods to produce enough money to keep them happy over the long term. Now, they just print money at will and let the eonomy go down the drain because they know the Petri dish is full and the yeast are going to be hungry no matter what happens.
Back to your list: Pearl S. Buck said it in "The Good Earth": "The land and the people will go on."
Tools, seed, soil, training.
The government or other tyrants will always have bigger guns, more ammunition, and willing bodies to wield them. The only way to fight such tyranny is to be more valuable on the land than off of it.
Guns and ammo will only help against the occasional drifter. Better to spend the time getting to know the neighbors and establishing an emergency network and personal trust.
Did you mean "war with Iran" or "attack on Iran?
cheers
Yes
Gold will be worthless if there isn't enough food to go around.
There will always be someone who will trade some gold for some food.
A better bet than, say a hyper inflating fiat currency.
Yes, better than a fiat currency, but still useless if there isn't any food, or if one day's food costs you all of your gold.
Thumb through a copy of Monbiot's "Heat", the start of Chapter 2, at the library or your local bookstore; no need to buy it if you don't want. He makes a good argument why those are exactly the sort of people that cannot tune in to your message.
I too have had that experience over and over and over; those that should be receptive - even those whose job is to be receptive - for example PUC commissioners or Commerce and Utilities committee in legislature - simply cannot grasp the concepts. The only person I ever heard laugh out loud when I touched on energy and economy in one of my talks was former chair of PUC.
Monbiot points out how they are educated not so much to deny as "not to see". Further, they get into their jobs because of their support for business as usual. Their ability to conduct business as usual depends on them having a huge blind spot.
I treat it as a class issue: the developer class, the people who are f***ing the planet, vs those of us who want to live on it. The political system - at least in US - is entirely owned subsidiary of the former. No one trying to keep their footprint as small as possible can play. The US political system is another example of positive feedback, where what makes things worse strengthens itself.
cfm in Gray, ME
cfm,
Thanks for responding. Discussion is so vital. It's an interesting point and sort of gets at what I was saying about people who make decisions based on their experiences vs. those who collect as much information as possible before making a decision.
I'm not certain that I buy into the idea that some people simply cannot imagine anything other than business as usual. This seems to smack of cynicism. These people didn't get to where they are because they are stupid, and as individuals they are not so greedy and self-centered as some believe. This is actually contrary to good leadership. I think the problem is that in their mind there is simply not enough justification for change. Add to that a tendency for most of us to think tomorrow is going to be pretty much like today, and the social environment that encourages pursuing wealth and consumption with no thought of tomorrow.
I would assert that decision makers have trusted advisers that they depend on. If we could gain more acceptance among credible experts we will have an easier time of it. It is beyond you and I to accomplish this, but the editors and contributors along with ASPO are doing an excellent job. I think it is important for us to be selective with our audience to ensure that we have credibility. And as was stated before, having the support of an local expert helps immensely.
Had I heeded the advice my friend gave I could have done a lot better with my investments. (this was a few years ago) But it's possible that he feels differently now due to the looming credit problems.
We are all entitled to our opinions, but I have found that caution is warranted before adopting an extreme position. I do not like to close my mind to other opinions (with some exceptions of course, Values are another subject). My experience tells me that it is a mistake to think that I have the truth of things. I have heard the arguments for America being a "Corporacy" and the more cynical call it a "Kleptocracy". There are some elements of truth but I think these viewpoints represent frustration and despair more than anything else. This is understandable given the multitude of problems that seem to go unaddressed and the growing gap between rich and poor.
It's all a matter of priorities. The goal of Gail's presentation should be to elevate the priority in people's minds of reducing our dependence on oil, and our goal to advance the grass roots awareness of the issue.
Thanks for listening,
Clint
The reason why the stock market keeps going up and up is because the value of the dollar keeps going down. Measured against most other major currencies (Euro, the British Pound, even Canadian Dollars -- which are now worth more than a dollar) the stock market has gone down across the board since Bush took office. So has the GDP. Being bearish in stocks while the dollar keeps declining is unwise.
A seemingly unrelated video presentation called "Money Is Debt" can explain the other side of the problem. Debt creates money which fuels the economy. Debt can only be repaid if interest can be collected. Interest requires economic growth. Economic growth requires energy growth.
This is why conservation efforts are worthless right now. Any energy you save yourself gets eaten up by the economic growth machine. Right now learning to live with less energy and paying off debt is counter productive to the economy.
But "Peak Oil" will reverse all of that. No more energy -> no economic growth -> Debt Defaults -> Bank Closures -> The end of the Federal Reserve System.
Thanks Ariane
The situation has never been put more succinctly.
Even my pea brain gets it.
It is best to dig the well before you are thirsty.
ArianeB,
Thanks for your perspective.
My contention is that the public needs to be spoon-fed this stuff and throwing too much at them at one time is going to get you dismissed.
I think the intention of this presentation is to heighten awareness of the problem. We should consider the most effective approach.
Clint
I say this (not quite so succinctly) in my series on the Economic Impacts of Peak Oil, Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.
Yes you did Gail and I apologise for saying never.
I quite enjoyed your economics series.
I believe you have a half-truth there, at best.
True.
False. Interest requires that the value of the return on the investment is greater than the investment. For instance, even in a situation of contracting energy supply you could borrow to replace a 30% efficient engine with a 45% efficient machine and repay the loan with part of the savings.
Equivocal. It requires getting more out, but there are two confounding effects:
If you are going to draw such sweeping conclusions, you need to support them with better evidence.
For instance, even in a situation of contracting energy supply you could borrow to replace a 30% efficient engine with a 45% efficient machine and repay the loan with part of the savings.
Our current systems have such great losses that we could get more out with less input without undue difficulty.
The key question is not whether or not the OECD countries can go on getting richer for a while longer by technological cleverness, but whether or not 8 or 9 billion people can live at current OECD standards of living or higher given all of the earth’s resource constraints (not just energy). I am all in favor of increasing the resource efficiency of the production of useful goods and services, but I think that the primary use of that increased efficiency should be to reduce resource consumption and ecological foot print until the human population and the planet,s ecological heath have stabilized. If we move forward on the assumption that we can purse vigorous economic growth and ecological footprint reduction at the same time we are taking an enormous risk.
Good out-of-box information tool; although who do you suppose(or hope)will use this? PO Grass roots lobbyists? Politicos? CEOs? (pause for laughter)
I'm new to TOD - I'm wondering if rising sea level's impact on sea ports (disrupting food and energy distribution)has been seriously discussed in any previous threads? Thanks
VMT,
Welcome.
My memory sucks, but yes, there was a post on that at some point--at least that was a part of it...anyone remember?
I am thinking about the use of this mostly on a grass roots basis. Some people may want to talk about peak oil with a few friends or family members. Using a copy of the PDF handout to talk though some of the issues may be helpful. A picture is sometimes worth a thousand words.
Some people may want to share this with a few co-workers. This could be done either with a copy of the handout, or with a PowerPoint presentation.
In some cases, people knowledgeable about peak oil may want to make a presentation to a formal group. In this case, the PowerPoint is likely to be the best approach.
Regarding your question on seaports, there has been considerable discussion on TOD about the arctic ice melting, and possible impact on Greenland ice. If Greenland ice should melt, sea levels are expected to rise by 20 feet. It is difficult to estimate a date for this.
Gail,
Good work. I'm giving a talk to a crowd next month on something unrelated but I'd like to spend 15 minutes talking about my real passion. i hope that is ok?
Beez
That is what this presentation is for. If oil stays over $90 a barrel, the audience may be very receptive.
Great stuff. It will come in handy at this end.
Are there plans for a powerpoint on the North American natural gas situation at all?
I hadn't thought about it. It is a little harder to get good information about natural gas than oil.
Thanks for the Idea - I get a lot of my ideas from readers.
great job of laying out the facts w/o the conclusions
in my work i have to write notes. typically we focus on summaries & conclusions. i attempt to write out
behaviors but w/o conclusions. this allows readers to impose their own bias or feel good as they come to reasonable conclusions[which they can confirm in limited futher reasearch].
i'll be sending a copy to relatives & have been looking for something short & real like this!!! thanks!
Great presentation. My only comment is that the "No one told us!" and "Why weren't we told?" slides undermine what is otherwise a tone of sober assessment throughout.
Also, the "we'll have to unwind globalization" bullet is a bit much. Why not replace it with a reference to the Hirsch report and information about the timeframe for peak oil mitigation? That way, instead of opening the presentation to the criticism that it makes wild assertions, you refer back to the very little expert opinion that is out there about "what happens after peak oil."
Gail: good, straightforward presentation; thanks.
If I may be so bold, some may find a simulation model I did a few years ago of interest, too. I created it to explore (and help others explore) whether it was reasonable that we might run out of oil in our lifetimes. The model and accompanying column was published as Out of Gas: A Systems Perspective on Potential Petroleum-Fuel Depletion by Pegasus Communications. Perhaps some of those who aren't yet sure about this would find some insights by working through the downloadable model.
Yes, the column itself starts out in a way intended to capture people's interest so they might explore the model; the real insights come from trying the model.
Oh, and the model suggests that a symmetric decline in production might be rather optimistic.
Comments are welcome.
Bill
--
Bill Harris
Facilitated Systems
http://facilitatedsystems.com/
One thing that outreach presentations like these should be doing is a generation of outrage against the incredibly poor energy policy we are paying our congress members for (at least here in the U.S.). Peak oil is something our government has to be about preparing for; and they started to do the needed things with Ford and Carter when we had 30 years to get it done. But, sadly, these things were a casualty of the Reagan Revolution and a return to $20 oil. Now, when we don't have the luxury of time, the U.S. government is doing all they can to make matters worse. They seem to have a scattergun approach to oil replacement that winds up focused on all the things that do the least good - like the useless corn ethanol boondoggle. The super-critical problem with oil replacement, as we've discussed a lot here, is EROEI. And EROEI is what our Congress is the most clueless about and why corn ethanol, and most everything else they're doing, won't work. They are dealing with the most dangerous problem presented by peak oil, namely inflation, by using up a lot of food crop resources to produce a worthless oil substitute and thereby inducing even more commodity inflation. What is more universally used in our groceries than corn oil and corn products?. I did an unkind presentation about Washington here basically calling them the global village idiot of energy policy. I don't know how much good a grassroots movement by an informed electorate would do, however. As I've said before, most likely you could take your representative in Congress, tie him up in a chair in front a screen, show him the work of Hubbert, explain EROEI, do everything including beating him over the head with a special 35 lb congressional edition of Deffeyes, and he would still do nothing effective about oil replacement.
Gail - strangely enough yesterday on peakoil.com I posted about the need for a short and sweet PO presentation, possibly about the size of a handbill; I even mentioned your primers as examples of the sort of lengthy analysis which have been done before. Topic is why does everyone thing peak oil = end of the world?, my remarks are on page 2.
A rather fawning admirer of Savinar tried to print up posters with the PO story, lots of Net links. The fawningness didn't work on Matt at all, Chimps don't like sycophants it would seem. Some good discussion of the potential for proselytizing went on, though. Many over at PO.com were altogether down on the very idea. Getting the word out (the subject itself) might make a good story here at TOD.
Non-alarmist is by all the means the way to go. Honey trumps vinegar. The alarmist mindset will have made it to bunker.com by now anyway. I don't think we're shortchanging anyone, quite the contrary in fact.
I second that. I think an organized effort to spread the "peak oil" meme can have a very good EROEI. In fact, I think it is about the only thing we can do other than making preparations at the most local of levels. Just plant the seed.
I vacillate between the alarmist and moderate approach myself. It doesn't seem like a good use of time to debate which approach is better. Just like each of you reading this right now, people who are today completely unaware of peak oil will have their own unique reactions on the spectrum from doomish to hopeful, or combinations thereof, when they become aware. Just spread the meme.
Preparations for peak oil that benefit the population in general will not come from the top. In his October, 2005, speech at the NY Petrocollapse Conference, Mike Ruppert said it succinctly and, IMHO, accurately:
He referenced, among other things, the March, 1977, CIA intelligence memorandum titled, "The Impending Soviet Oil Crisis", available on the CIA's web site (document ER 77-10147). This isn't news. It's just news to us. And it has yet to be news for the vast majority of people. Right now peak oil is a secret. I wish it wasn't. I look forward to the day when I encounter another human being who doesn't look at me funny when I say the words, "Peak oil." At that point it will be a hell of a lot easier to make changes at the local level.
I don't think people will wake up one day, decades from now, and say, "Hey, I just realized that we don't use much oil anymore." There will be a punctuated point, a tipping point, when people know about peak oil and understand the reality that comes with it. It will most likely result in panic hoarding, and I think we should make an effort to bring about such an event as soon as possible because it will happen and the sooner it does, the better. The sooner it happens the less strained the supply chains will be. Better to do it now while Wal-Mart still has a hope of restocking the shelves, me thinks.
That's as close as I get to "hoping" for a "doomer scenario". I have no delusions that a citizen-induced mass awareness of peak oil will come to pass. By all means, continue to do whatever it is you are doing to make preparations in your own life. I am. I just hope we can expand the pool of people aware of peak oil and wanting to do something about it, from the bottom up.
In his October 15 piece Prepping for Peak: How Fast Can We Change?, Robert Rapier referred to a future time when "Peak Oil becomes conventional wisdom." The sooner we get to that point, the better.
A couple of thoughts:
1. I am not entirely sure I want everyone to know about peak oil. I am afraid that there will be panic and hoarding. Stock markets will crash. Availability of loans will drop greatly. In many ways, the knowledge of peak oil will have almost as big an impact as peak oil itself.
At the same time, we do need to work on preparation for peak oil, and it is hard to do that without knowledge of peak oil. I suspect some people/governments have substituted global warming for peak oil, since its solutions are similar, and it is less threatening.
2. I am not certain how the crisis will materialize. I think what we may have is a financial crisis that may not be widely recognized as a peak oil crisis for many years, if ever. The higher price of oil will exert pressure on many parts of the economy - higher oil prices, higher food prices, more loan defaults, less spending for discretionary goods, declining stock prices, and so forth. We may end up with hyperinflation or deflation. The results may play out somewhat like those discussed in my article Economic Impact of Peak Oil Part 3: What's Ahead, but people may still have little recognition that peak oil is ultimately the cause.
Gail - kudos for your effort.
And thanks for bringing this up as well. It's ironic, but when you're basically talking about the end of the world, the game becomes different in some ways. I too am trying to convince people, but must admit I don't have a specific cogent rationale for doing so, which is unusual for me.
Indeed, as one whose perspective is basically malthusan, I see ironies wherever I look.
A very good summary presentation. Now how do we get people to do something?
As I posted once before, I think that we have to get people thinking about how peak oil (and other problems) are going to hit them economically. And what they can do about it (everybody wants to save money). This means conserving energy, and saving money, as a new way of life. It will require some major changes in our economic and political systems, because everybody is going to have to go along. It can't be done just on an individual basis (Central planning, anyone?) I grew up in the Great Depression, and I just shake my head when I see how wasteful this society is.
As prices go up, people will be interested in saving money by cutting back on car driving, electrical use, better insulation for houses, etc. This may not be a solution for the long run, but it gets people to think about the problem without being frightened into inaction. So that then we can get to work creating a much more energy-efficient society: one that is really sustainable. I don't think out goal should be to make doomers out of everybody!
Thank you Gail.
I've put it on my website and will point to it in my "Living without Oil" blog.
One small note: You didn't put your name on the presentation. I put an Acrobat stick note crediting you for this.
Bob Boeri
~live sustainably~
Gail-
Thanks. I just got off the phone with someone in our group here, having decided to, not just show filmes, but also give ten minute presentations to boards of local groups (presumably, that's all the agenda time we'd get).
I was wondering where I'd get a slideshow, and I start browsing, and zing! there it is.
Is it OK to riff off this slideshow? I might want to modify/delete/add some slides. When showing it, I guess we'd say "This is based on a slideshow of Gail Tverberg, an insurance actuary in Atlanta" or some such?
It might be best to keep the presentation intact, and add your slides at the end (or beginning).
I didn't put my name on the presentation because I expected people would say that this is a presentation that was downloaded from TheOilDrum.com website. If you want to add that Gail Tverberg or Gail the Actuary made it, that is fine, but not essential. I left my name off because I thought some people would be more comfortable showing it if it didn't have someone else's name written all over the front.
Non-alarmist is ok. We are in grave, but not imminent danger. The economy is unlikely to collapse in the next year or next five. If there is no chance of human survival, then there is no need to worry about whether people change or not. I am not of the camp that believes there is no chance of survival. If we are truthful about what we know, there is no need to sound the alarms yet. Before Paul Revere rode, the colonists knew they had a problem with the British. Of course, because we did not start preparing 25 years ago, the ride is likely to be very rocky and some people will die. We have only a few years to reach the population. If we start out with factual information, we will have more receptive and alert ears as predicted events come to pass. Our survival depends more on community than it does on technology. Let our strategy be one that builds community, however small a part of the general population that is.
I like this cogent presentation.
If you're going to deliver the bad news, perhaps you ought to suggest things that people can do to deal with it. The sooner you get them from "denial" of our predicament to "acceptance" of it, the better for us all.
Perhaps it would be worth presenting a view of the future that is not entirely bleak. There are opportunities besides making a financial "killing" in the futures markets.
A Peak Oil - Part 2 presentation might make sense, with more on what is ahead.
Gail, the presentation would be stronger if you added the Campbell/Laherrere curve of discovery and production, and the Ace curve projecting decline of current producers and new developments coming on stream to show a net decline. Perhaps A WestTexas export decline curve would also help.
Thanks for the presentation. I had on my schedule to do one for myself, but your's starts better than what I was planning. Murray
I think that there is room for more than one kind of presentation. A longer presentation, with some additional graphs, might be appropriate for some audiences.
Gail, the presentation would be stronger if you added the Campbell/Laherrere curve of discovery and production, and the Ace curve projecting decline of current producers and new developments coming on stream to show a net decline. Perhaps A WestTexas export decline curve would also help.
Thanks for the presentation. I had on my schedule to do one for myself, but your's starts better than what I was planning. Murray
Gail-
I prepared a similar presentation earlier this year and have shown it at some of our local county Democratic Party meetings. We're trying to do a presentation sponsored by the UAW in Janesville, WI - where they make the Suburbans, Tahoes, and Yukons. I may have to wear a bulletproof vest for that one!!!
Other slides I have included cover:
A slide that shows CERA type optimistic estimates, and explain that that is like finding six new Saudi Arabias, and the pace of discovery would have to match the peak discovery rate.
A slide that shows the OPEC late 80's jump in reported reserves, so I can explain how that is false information.
A slide with the USGS quote about how they forecasted demand, and then set production to match it - to show how even the US is deceiving itself.
Slides that explain that ethanol and biodiesel can only cover about 15% of our fuel needs
I want to include an export land model slide of Mexico, to explain the ELM concept.
Thank you! This is excellent.
I had an idea there was an argument going around that states that in the 70's it was thought there were approx 2 trillion barrels available and that now we have burnt half of it...but that since then technology has made considerably more oil available and the cost curently has allowed some of this to be extracted profitably with the new estimates being 4 to 5 trillion barrels out there or more correctly down there.
Now Im not saying we havnt reached peak oil cos by that I refer to peak oil production..and as your graphs show production has peaked but there is nothing to prevent renewed efforts to drill for more in much the same way Russia has done !
And production and refining the stuff is all about a game to make certain people more money..refined product is a tool , take it away and the price soars, and there appears to be a deliberate move by certain govt to do just that.
I would argue there is plenty of oil....and what we are seeing is a carefully orchestrated game play for money.
Russia was a special situation. It had not adopted the newer technology. it could adopt the newer technology, and increase production again. There are reports (from Alfa Bank in Russia) that Russia is getting close to the point where its production will decline again.
I doubt that many countries will be able to do this. I expect that new methods will have some benefit, but they will mostly make the downslope less steep.