Yup, watched and taped it. Thought it pretty good overall for the lay public. Anybody on this site automatically knows a lot more than the program. It did have Matt Simmons on it and Yergin and his ilk were ignored. For someone who has never heard of Peak Oil or possible impending oil shortages, hopefully it will spark their curiosity and search on the internet and find out there is a lot more complexity to the program.

Unfortunately, most adults are only interested in the outside world when it interferes with their immediate world. My neighbour could watch this program and not think that it affects them. If oil shortages started in 3 years time, I doubt if they would get the connection between those shortages and this program. There are very few people able or willing to see beyond their nose.

I was disappointed

I think it failed to shock, my wife is bored/sceptical re. peak oil and I doubt this program would help to persuade where I have failed.

I wonder if the few insomniac laymen that stumbled on to the program (seeing as it was aired at 11;20pm on BBC2) were sufficiently shocked too. They might be thinking we could be in for a repeat of the 70's oil shock i.e. petrol station queues, a bit of a nasty recession, having to wear a sweater indoors... and not until 2016 i.e bit too far away to worry.

The ending was way too positive, designed not to scare - happy couple & baby (& nurse ??) back in their warm, comfortable flat with a voice over talking about new energy solutions and the conclusion that "things will be alright".

I think we are all amazed at the lack of public awareness and therefore grateful for any coverage in the media - but this program won't make the difference. A few more TOD members if they can google the links - its not enough.

By the way the scene with the wolves was a classic

I watched it (and made a DVD recording).  It was rather as I expected i.e. story format rather than pure documentary and some of the sub-plots were less than relevant, for example the onsite geologist's personal life.  Some of the drilling practices were somewhat questionable - we could hit 50m targets 20 years ago using steering assemblies so why did the rig crew have such problems in 2016?

The item I'd most like to have seen included was either 'the Growing Gap' chart or a tabulation showing that discoveries had been in decline since 1965; instead we were shown discovery stats just back 5 years to 2000 but even so the downward trend was extremely visible.  I just feel that showing these stats over such a short period gives scope to cornocupian economists to state that 'large extra discoveries are about to appear following oil price hikes since 1999'.  By going 4 decades back instead we can show that the downward trend persisted thru periods of very high prices including that of the 1970's oil shocks.

The program certainly captured the scenario where 'rationing by price' rapidly broke down as people hoarded and stole fuel and fighting occurred amoung those queueing at filling stations.  My conclusion was that Governments would likely need to introduce some form of formal rationing at times of instability / shortages to avoid a situation where 'bullies are the first in line'.  Such rationing would be unpopular...but so would all the other options to address supply failing to meet demand (including simply leaving everything to market forces).

The featured wildcat well in ANWR was initially prognosed to discover 4 Gbbl field which was stated to last a fair amount of time - I've not yet rerun the program but I think a timeframe of 15 years was mentioned.  The key statistic I was looking for at this point (but didn't hear) was that at 21m bopd such a field represented just 6-1/4 months of US demand or 6.7 weeks of world demand!  Not least those unfamiliar with the industry might conclude that 'someone' would simply drill a well and the oil so discovered would fix the shortages - the fact that ANWR production would take at least 6 years to be brought online was glossed over.

As other posters have commented I can't help feeling that viewers were left with the conclusion that the problem was only temporary due to political rather than geological factors (Saudi decision to contract supplies directly with China, Venezuela to opt out of OPEC etc).  Joe Public is going to have quite a wake up call when the penny finally drops that the shortages will be anything but temporary.

My wife now is worried about the future
and thinks 2016 is not a long way off
our daughter is only 6 and will still
be at school in 2016. She is very frightened
when I said it will most likely happen in
2010/12,and wants to know how best to
protect our familey from the troubles to
come.
 My answer is the goverment should be
spendind our tax on under water taidel
tubines like MCT Tecnology in Bristol
energy saving programes like making it
illegal not to use low energy bulbs,
except in listed buildings.
 INSTEAD they will spend tens of millions
on new drugs for the health service (like
the new brest cancer drug. Before someone
goes off on one my wifw allready has brest
cancer and has been well treated on the
currently available drugs)
3 billion on advisers of one sort or another
2 billion over payment of family credit
 plenty of money there to start programs
to try and soften the impack of peakoil
and gas.
It is a pity no elected goverment will have
the guts to take hard unpopular decisions
before  the crises is upon us all.

Most people cannot immediately deal with the future potential difficulties of oil depletion.

They can be weaned.

The thrust of the programme was gentle but insistent.  Very different to the strength of the "terrorism" IF drama.

TPTB, MSM, prefer us to be panicked by terrorism, but only require us to be vaguely aware, or uncomfortable, with oil depletion.

Their timetable is unfolding slower than those at TOD would like.

An alarm, or wake-up call, is too strong, even if Peak Oil is now.

Little by little, drip, drip...

Avoiding panic and mania is the key policy.

Having viewed the programme and just read the review by the Daily Mail man (who like most tabloid journalists doesn't let the fact that he knows b*** all about a subject prevent him writing about it), I'm not confident it will help with peak oil awareness.  My view is that most viewing the programme would think:

"The government obviously know about it so they will sort something out in 10 years";

"If oil is only going be 85 dollars a barrel in 10 years time that's less than now in real terms, so the present oil price rises are going to stop and maybe reverse - so I don't have to economise, just put the extra cost on the card for now";

"It's 10 years away, I'll be better off by then and there will be alternatives to oil" - like the fuel cells hailed by the Mail man;

"They think it will only be a short-lived glitch, like in 1973.  It will be tough for a few months then OK again";

or like the Mail man: "just another hysterical TV programme to get a few viewers in a late night slot".

I wonder if it might not cause many to be less, rather than more switched on to future peak oil publicity.
 

I thought the newsnight report on Friday the 2nd of june on Russian energy geopolitics more dramatic.

"2006 will be remember as the year energy transformed geopolitics"

the "if" program was ok but unclear in its message

Peter Paterson - what a buffoon!

googleÅÅÃûÍøÌṩ,Óлú²£Á§,Óлú²£Á§
Óлú²£Á§ÖÆÆ·
Óлú²£Á§
Óлú²£Á§ÖÆÆ·
Óлú²£Á§ÖÆÆ·
Óлú²£Á§
Óлú²£Á§ÖÆÆ·
Óлú²£Á§
Óлú²£Á§ÖÆÆ·
Óлú²£Á§
Óлú²£Á§ÖÆÆ·
Óлú²£Á§
Óлú²£Á§ÖÆÆ·
Óлú²£Á§
Óлú²£Á§ÖÆÆ·
Óлú²£Á§
Óлú²£Á§ÖÆÆ·
Óлú²£Á§
ѹ¿ËÁ¦
ѹ¿ËÁ¦
Óлú²£Á§ÖÆÆ·
Óлú²£Á§ÖÆÆ·
Óлú²£Á§
ѹ¿ËÁ¦
ѹ¿ËÁ¦
ѹ¿ËÁ¦
ѹ¿ËÁ¦
ѹ¿ËÁ¦
ѹ¿ËÁ¦
ѹ¿ËÁ¦
ѹ¿ËÁ¦µÈgoogleÓÅ»¯·þÎñ.