I think this site could and should raise an initiative for a new international meeting - the "Peak Oil Kyoto".

In other news, I hear the 'Round Britain Powerboat races are going swimmingly.

I get the statistics from PRWeb on what is happening with the press release, from their perspective.

Most of the people who have read it, read it because they subscribe to PRWeb's news feed. Those who have read in on search engines generally seem to find it by doing a search for "peak oil", either with or without quotes. It is currently on page 2 of Google News using "peak oil" as a search term. It will probably migrate back, as it gets farther and farther from January 4.

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=%22peak+oil%22&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&start=10

If people know $100 oil than they probably know, even if they don't realize it, that peak oil is here.

Most people seem to know that the oil will someday run out but nobody puts 2 and 2 together.

A question: the press release mentions the "Institute for the Study of Energy and Our Future"...what's that all about? First I've heard of it...

Note in the 2nd chart Japan's numbers from 1990-2005.

http://themessthatgreenspanmade.blogspot.com/2008/01/oil-chart-porn-from...

Someone dugg this already, it has five votes (as of now), get it to 50 and we get more than 10000 new views from it:

http://digg.com/environment/Signal_of_Pending_Oil_Shortages_ignored

so, if you're in the mood...

and I threw it up on reddit too:

http://science.reddit.com/info/64q6d/comments/

Thanks
Gail,Nate,Kyle,and others

For bringing this to our attention. It's hard watching oil companies reaching all time highs in profits.

In my opinion this will be a better country if all oil companies share there profits with the American people and lend a hand in helping out the international community.

To me oil is the blood of Mother Earth and its hard watching her get sucked dry for profits, greed, and revenue.

Pretty good review. Although I also have been throwing out 90mbd as the probable peak production, I wouldn't state the amount so definitely. That way if we reach 92mbd the whole concept of PO can't be so easily dismissed. I also doubt the consequences will "steadily increase in importance". Due to variations in gelogic production, waether, geopolitics, as well as economics, a graph of any relvant metric (say price) will likely show a lot of short term volatility. This would seem to be petty nitpicking, however my experience is that the denialist industry thrives on small inaccuracies.

AN interview of Jim Rogers and Marc Faber telling Yergin that prices are going higher.

http://www.financialsense.com/transcriptions/2003/Riverside.html

Thank Goodness for Homeland Security! We will be able to crush, incarcerate, and waterboard anyone who steps out of line... and we don't even need a warrent!

But what about solutions? I recommend nationalizing the FEDs. Let's take that private bank and nationalize it making the profits go to the American people rather than to the Chase, Rockefellar, and Rothchild cartel. Gates isn't rich enough to lick a Rothchild's boots, but we never hear of Rothchild wealth. Why is that? Better yet, let's outlaw fractional reserve banking. We don't need growth. We can't survive more growth, despite Catholic assertions. Finally let's default on our debts. We can't pay them anyway. It is impossible in a contracting economy. You may survive another year or so, but your debts will consume you. I am not talking just individually but nationally. We're bankrupt folks. Do we give everything American to banks and foreign nationals or do we make a stand?

Good luck in the coming year... it is going to be brutal.

Excellent press release, summarizing the main concepts of PO. What about translating it in the main languages by foreign TOD readers, for a broader diffusion ?

Heading_Out,

I like the general form of the release but believe it assumes too much that everyone realises how crucial oil is to modern civilisation -in reality I don't think this is true. I think the vast majority probably just see $100 oil meaning their gas fillup will be getting a bit dearer or they will be paying a bit more for their winter heating oil -and to a certain extent in the early days this IS all they will probably see so the impact is muted. TOD offers a great -and sometime scary- glimpses at future scenarios. It is this joining of the dots that inspires the efforts of many contributors because they realise that unless something is done -and quick- we are in major trouble.

The causual relationships between events occuring could be explored further in subsequant releases. Perhaps a yearly or quarterly mass emailer could be setup -"The Yearly TOD Roundup" would provide a good basis for this with a TOD statement as summary of what has happened, why and some prediction until the next release. As events unfold over the subsequant critical half-decade these relationships should be strengthened by a periodic review of this kind and enable TOD to gain even more credibility for its insight, information and views.

Regards, Nick.

This is also a blow against many renewables.On the face of it, that sounds daft, but the intermittancy of most renewables mean that they are highly dependent on having other supplies which can be switched on and off readily.
For wind in particular the economics get rapidly worse as you go over 20% of installed capacity, and not every area is lucky enough to have the back-up Denmark have with the huge hydroelectric resources of Sweden and Norway.
The same applies to solar, as poor weather means that you have to fire up gas and so on in pretty short order to compensate.
Of course, better storage would cover it - but the amount needed would be huge, and hugely expensive.
Hot dry rock geothermal would be the exception to this, but we really have not developed the technology to play a major role anytime soon.
In addition to these problems the present surge in wind power actually means it is a lot more difficult to introduce geothermal or nuclear which could provide substantial amounts of baseload capacity, as the economics of wind are based on that being the first choice when available.
If you have invested hugely in a geothermal or nuclear baseload then your windpower resources are no longer the first choice, and the economics of them greatly worsen.
Anyone with insight into how France intends to integrate their large plans for windpower with their substantial nuclear fleet could inform us greatly.
I suspect they simply have not thought things through.
Another option would be to build something like the huge polders proposed for the North Sea, with windmills on a manmade lagoon pumping water up and down in the central lake. This sounds titanically expensive, and high fuel costs would raise the costs still more.
Of course, this is a somewhat Euro-centric perspective, with it's poor solar isolation, but solar too at present is largely based on the premise that there are large switchable resources from oil and gas available at short notice.
I would be interested in discussion here on this issue.

This is a fairly good press release, but I would suggest the following improvements in future ones:

(1) Make it shorter
(2) Make it tighter
(3) Avoid clumsy "double negative" phrases like these
"the needed investment will be at an increasingly diminished rate of return, to the point where it becomes economically unattractive"
"The increasingly limited ability of nations such as Saudi Arabia"
Instead:
"investments will yield a rate of return that plunges to the point where it becomes uneconomical"
" The steadily diminishing ability of nations such as Saudi Arabia"

AMERICANS INSATIABLE THIRST FOR ENERGY MUST BE MODERATED R5.
By Yehuda Draiman, Energy Development Specialist

As you know, many serious problems are associated with our insatiable thirst for energy. The reason is simple: To gain the energy we must burn the fuels. The combustion, by the way quite inefficient, causes huge gaseous emissions polluting the air and forming an invisible screen responsible for the famous “ green house effect ”, i.e., blocking the dissipation of heat and thus causing the feared warming up of our planet, with deadly consequences for nature and man.
There is only a finite amount of oil in the world. Everybody knows this.
Someday, we'll run out. It will be gone.
Meanwhile, our insatiable thirst for oil -- which we burn -- has put enormous sums of money into the hands of fanatics who hate us and everything we stand for, and who use that oil money to fund the terrorists who murder Jews and Americans wherever they can.
We can't burn oil forever.
And it's bad strategy to base our economy on cheap oil when we have to buy at least some of it from our enemies.
Optimists tell us that the free market will eventually deal with the problem. Their theory is that as oil gets harder to extract cheaply, the price will go up; then other forms of energy will become economically attractive and we'll switch over to them.
Here's why their optimism is nothing short of suicidal.
First, there's no guarantee that without intense government-funded research and financial incentives now, the new energy sources will be available in quantities large enough to replace oil when it does run out.
In other words, if we wait until it's an emergency, our economy could easily crash and burn for lack of energy sources sufficient to drive it.
It's easy to supply energy for an economy that's only a tenth the size of the world's economy today. The question is how many people will die in the resulting chaos and famine, before new free-market equilibrium is established?
Second, how stupid do we have to be to wait until we run out of oil before acting to prevent its waste as a fuel? Petroleum is a vital source of plastics. We could use it for that purpose for hundreds of generations -- if we didn't burn any more of it. But if we wait till we've burned all the cheap petroleum, it won't be just fuel that we have to replace.
Third, market forces don't do anything for our national defense, our national security. We had a clear warning back in the 1970s with the first oil embargo. What if terrorism in the Middle East specifically targets all oil exports, from many countries?
And even if they keep the oil flowing, why are we pumping money into the pockets of militant extremists who want to destroy us? Why are we subsidizing our enemies, when instead we could be subsidizing the research that might set us free from our addiction to oil?
You notice that I haven't said anything about polluting the environment. Because this is not an environmental issue.
In the long run, it's an issue of whether we wish to provide for our children the same kind of prosperity that we've luxuriated in as a nation since World War II.
It is foolish optimism bordering on criminal neglect that we continue to think that our future will be all right as long as we find new ways to extract oil from proven reserves.
Instead of extracting it, we ought to be preserving it.
Congress ought to be giving greater incentives and then creating mandates that require hybrid vehicles to predominate within the next five years.
Within the next fifteen years, we must move beyond hybrids to means of transportation that don't burn oil at all.
Within thirty years, we must handle our transportation needs without burning anything at all.
Predicting the exact moment when our dependence on petroleum will destroy us is pointless.
What is certain is this: We will run out of oil that is cheap enough to burn. We don't know when, but we do know it will happen.
And on that day, our children will curse their forebears who burned this precious resource, and therefore their future, just because they didn't want the government to interfere with the free market, or some other such nonsense.
The government interferes with the free market constantly. By its very existence, government distorts the market. So let's turn that distortion to our benefit. Let's enforce a savings program. But instead of putting money in the bank, let's put oil there.
Oil in the bank ... so our children and grandchildren for a hundred generations can slowly draw it out to build with it instead of burn it.
Oil in the bank ... so we'll be free of the threat of fanatics who seek to murder their enemies -- including us -- with weapons paid for at our gas pumps.
Do you want to know who funded Osama bin Laden? We did. And we continue to do it every time we fill up.
You don't have to be an environmental fanatic to demand that we control our greed for oil.
In fact, you have to be dumb and a fool not to insist on it.
But ... foresight just isn't the American way. We always seem to wait until our own house is burning before we notice there's a wildfire.
Oh, it won't reach us here, we tell ourselves. We'll be safe.
Talk about foolish optimism.
Fair Threat to World Economy But Oil Boycott Improbable
Energy Efficiency Must Be North America’s Priority but Canada and
U.S. Fail on Energy Efficiency Policies
“The despots of the moderate Middle East are non-players save for
their oil in the ground… My concern is that my grand kids might see parts of the
Middle East turned into a nuclear waste land, and Ali Baba and The Forty
Thieves. The world community needs to see a checkmate within the next 60 -
90 days. Failing that, Iran and Syria will be emboldened.” Reiterating an almost
universal view on the panel, this CEO emphasized that the world’s seemingly
The Chinese contribution to the energy crisis
The quest for resources. The dynamic Chinese economy, which has averaged 9 percent growth per annum over the last two decades, nearly tripled the country's GDP, has also resulted in the country having an almost insatiable thirst for oil as well as a need for other natural resources to sustain it. The PRC has been a net importer of petroleum since 1993, and has increasingly relied on African countries as suppliers. As of last year, China was importing approximately 2.6 million barrels per day (bbl/d), which accounts for about half of its consumption; more than 765,000 bbl/d – roughly a third of its imports – came from African sources, especially Sudan, Angola, and Congo (Brazzaville).
To get some perspective on these numbers, consider that one respected energy analyst has calculated that while China's share of the world oil market is about 8 percent, its share of total growth in demand for oil since 2000 has been 30 percent. The much publicized purchase, in January of this year, of a 45 percent stake in an offshore Nigerian oilfield for $2.27 billion by the state-controlled China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) was just the latest in a series of acquisitions dating back to 1993 whereby the three largest Chinese national oil companies – China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation (Sinopec), and CNOOC, respectively – have acquired stakes in established African operations.
Our insatiable thirst for Middle East energy is “the oil [that] feeds the fire.”
This idea that we can live in a homogenous cul-de-sac suburban development in our plastic homes driving 50 to 100 miles to work in a 4700lb SUV to our middle management job at Bed Bath and Beyond and expect this way of life to just continue on indefinitely with no consequences represents mind boggling ignorance and negligence towards our future. The "American Dream" is a relic of the Baby Boomer generation and will die with our parents and grandparents. To quote author James Kunstler: "Suburban development in this country represents the single largest misallocation of wealth and resources in the history of the planet."

So could a 900 acre photo voltaic array power a major metropolitan grid. No, probably not. But the question isn't how do we squeeze enough energy out of the technology to accommodate our seemingly insatiable thirst for electricity and fuel but rather how do we cut the fat and waste out of our civilization and our lives and actually live WITHIN our environment with some sort of sustainability. There is no one technology that will provide all our solutions. It will have to be a combination of wind turbines, solar and hydroelectric excluding the remote possibility that some new form of energy production (i.e. cold fusion or something equally fantastical) is unleashed on the world by CERN or ET. These power plants will operate primarily at a local level servicing on a much smaller scale than what we here in North America have been so used to in the last 70 or so years.
IS TECHNOLOGY BEING HELD BACK
New Solar Electric Cells - 80% efficient
Mr. Marks says solar panels made with Lepcon or Lumeloid, the materials he patented, ... Most photovoltaic cells are only about 15 percent efficient. ...
If the American public's insatiable appetite for automobiles continues, uncurbed by any sense of responsibility, someone must, like a parent with a selfish child, at least start slapping wrists.
Perhaps we should ration gasoline, and insist that all cars meet a miles-per-gallon minimum -- one higher than many sport utility vehicles, for example, achieve now. The rationing would not be a wartime figure, of course, but a reasonable amount allowed for business and pleasure.
Americans consume the largest portion of gas in the world and cry the loudest about the price.
The government should repeatedly increase the price of gasoline in an effort to slow our country's insatiable thirst for oil. Utilize the excess profits and taxes to fund research and rebates for renewable efficiency and renewable energy.
Yehuda Draiman, Energy Analyst – 1/1/2008 – renewableenergy2@msn.com
PS. but they will keep pumping more in the years ahead to quench our insatiable thirst for energy.
A new source of energy storage is in the works using ULTRACAPCITORS.
THE NEW DAWN OF SOLAR
A California firm “Nanosolar of San Jose” says it is producing solar panels for 30 cents per watt. If true, then a power plant made from these solar panels should produce electricity cheaper