TOD 2.0 Goes Over 2M Unique Visits and 5M Page Views

Some time around noonish edt on July 6th, we moved over to the new format around the end of August (TOD 2.0)--will have accumulated 2 million unique visits and 5 million pageviews. (TOD 1.0 got about 200k visitors and 300k pageviews by the time it was decommissioned--and yes, it was only around five and a half months ago that we were at 1 million uniques.)

While it is probably not all that appropriate to gush about my colleagues and this community every time we celebrate a milestone, I still have to take a moment to thank everyone involved with TOD. You're all wonderful--everyone from the older fixtures to the newest contributors--your hard work makes this site worth it. Thanks to all of you for being good people and helping this community grow.

It still comes down to you though--our readers--this would be a whole bunch of pointless yammering into the ether without you and your participation. Your loyalty, your skepticism, your wisdom, and your willingness to participate in this realm of ideas, and your defense of requiring logical arguments with evidence to back them up and not polemic remains unparalleled in blogistan.

Thank you for making it work. Suggestions and ideas (for innovations or otherwise) are always welcome.

[EDITOR'S NOTE by HO] To which thanks, let me add also my own. The willingness of everyone to share information, and the interest and discussion has been really gratifying. It has also brought us some great new insights from the new editors and contributors that have been kind enough to join us in putting their thoughts and views before you. And to Prof G I raise another glass in toast - who'd a'thunkit. (One of these days we are really going to have to get together and do this for real). And to Super G also for making this site so much more useful and interactive than we could have ever anticipated. My thanks to you all.

Also, before I forget, do please remember to hit those reddit/digg buttons on the articles and/or submit the articles you deem worthy to buzzflash, boing boing, fark, and the like; those services really do increase the number of folks coming in here and reading articles that they would not otherwise...thanks!
PG, I have just signed up for Digg and have just 'dugg' a couple of recent articles.  In both cases I was the only one to have done so.  Is this right?  Surely I cannot be the only one 'digg'ing these articles?  It's a bit daunting to be writing the Title and Description for these articles.  I just don't feel that qualified!  ;-)

Also would like to add my thanks to EVERYBODY who contributes to TOD in every way.

I usually do reddit for each article (we get more traffic from that), but I haven't been doing digg for the last few...however, I will go over and digg the ones you just did.  (we get about 10 hits for each single "digg" or up arrow on reddit, I am guessing...)
Hmmm.  Just 'dugg' Stuart's article on Inflation and it has asked me for a title and description.  Maybe I've got this wrong.  Does everyone enter a title and description, or does the first person only need to enter them?
hmmm...that's weird.  

see, I don't like digg as much...but as I say in a couple of other places, reddit seems to work better for us.

submitting things to buzzflash, fark, and boing boing do too.

I did the same with digg.  Seems to me it's unlike reddit in that multiple postings on the same article aren't sorted by URL.  They ask you to look, but it doesn't catch it itself, ergo multiple postings.  


We got a lot of traffic from digg once...that's why I keep pushing it too...we'll see if it's worth it.

Yes, the reddit process (including registration) is a lot simpler.  However, they don't have measures to stop bots registering and automating hits.  That could mean some sites get abnormally high ratings.
If I may ask, what's the bump from Digg like? Not being the most technically savvy of people, I just now discoverd it and red edit after you guys mentioned them here. Pretty cool sties.



the bump from reddit is a lot bigger than digg for some reason...we've gotten anything from 100 to 800/day out of a good reddit.  fark, boing boing, buzzflash, etc., now THEY are the places to get on--we got farked during the hurricanes, got us around 10k.

the more people submit an article, the more NEW hits, it's really that simple.

I got 5,000 hits from Reddit once on one of my blog articles. I have had some submitted to digg, but have never noticed much traffic. Another good one to bump the traffic way up is Slashdot, but it is hard to get an article accepted.


LATOC got farked in the early days. (All the way back in early 2004) It went from 500 a day to 100,000 in two days. Blew out my site for about a week.



is it possible to have a themes setting in user prefs?
I suggest that TODers post short installments of their science fiction stories relevant to peak oil and abrupt climate change.

Rules: No more than 350 words in any one post.
No more than 900 words in any one day, posted perhaps at six hour intervals to keep us on tenterhooks.

I'll start the ball rolling with page 1 of "The Adventures of C.C. Eggum" tomorrow morning shortly after thredbot does her thing.

Then I'll post a couple of pages later, and if I get positive response, I'll finish up chapter 1 on late Friday and early Sat. morning.

The hungrier you are, the more I'll feed you.

If you want to post comments, please show as much respect for my feelings as I do for those of others (which, admittedly, is not much;-) However, constructive criticism will be MUCH appreciated, and you'll get your name in the list of acknoledgements, which I hope will run to some hundreds of bright and witty folk such as we are here.

Summer reading: Robert Stone's Odyssean yachting novel Outerbridge Reach
I would like to recommend Mother of Storms by John Barnes. This book has some evocative descriptions of gigantic hurricanes created by the release of methane thats trapped in the form of clathrates in the bed of the Arctic ocean.
Was that the one with the supersonic hurricanes?
Note that in their complexity and relevance to many disciplines, peak oil resembles love and war.

Tolstoy's "War and Peace" contains more insight and useful ideas on both love and war than any fifty nonfiction books I can think of.

No, I'm not as good as Tolstoy. Not as good as Heinlein.

But . . . I'm getting better;-)

I am interested to read your story, Don. I am myself trying to write a novel, which will be tangentially at least about Peak Oil. I am writing partly out of my experience growing up in equatorial West Africa in the late '40s and early '50s, where my father was a petroleum engineer working for Socony-Vacuum (now, of course, called Mobil Oil)in Nigeria and Angola.
In about one hour I'll post the first installment of "The Adventures of C.C. Eggum."

After I show mine, please do the same with yours. Pretty please . . . with sugar on top!

Without adding to the generally lean amount of static here at TOD I 'm positive I speak for many when I say both congrats and more importantly thank you to the core group of editors, contributors and posters. What an frikken invaluable resource and dynamic learning tool this site is; the level of discourse is stimulating, diverse, respectful(!), and with the world energy picture what it is I'm sure the pageviews will only increase. Thanks. Really. No, I mean it...
Check out the 'recount' in the mexican election
AMLO's lead is diminishing slowly, looks like it could be a dead heat.
FTW Vandalized:

Mike's got pictures up. They hit his home also.



Thats pretty horrible - I wonder if this news will hit the MSM?
Almost undoubtedly a politically motivated attack.
I'm not so sure. This guy apparently has a conspiracy theory that Dick Cheney has a secret network which planned or approved of 9/11. He comes across as a little nuts to me, sorry. He also seems very skilled at convincing people. From the little I've seen, I wouldn't be suprised if it was some sort of publicity stunt, and I suspect that would be the MSM's conclusion as well. They have even less time to go in-depth than I have.

He's also indirectly responsible for the creation of this forum:

I learned from Mike and Prof Goose learned from me, which prompted him to start TOD. Him and Dale Allen Pfeifer were discussing these issues on FTW 5 years ago.

And, as FTW accurately claims, it does have more original reporting on Peak Oil than any other site.

If you want news aggregation go to Energy Bulletin
If you want discusion go to TOD
If you want original aritcles go to FTW

Point of this is even if you don't agree with Mike's thoeries regarding 9/11, he is not just another "conspiracy theorist" for you to not only dismiss but also disrespect the way you did.



Like everyone else, I make decisions about who to listen to based on trust. There's not enough time to investigate every claim, to give everyone an equal share of your time. When my first impression of Mike was his 9/11 theories, I decided this man wasn't worth listening to. That doesn't mean he can't be sensible on many issues, and I would pay attention if people whom I trust more than him (incl. you) passed on their trust to him, so to say.
What remains is that although Mike may have a small share in my trust network, the mainstream media has even less reason to listen to him. Since he has even offered the reasonable theory of a meth ring revenge, the press won't leap to the conclusion that his 9/11 theories are correct and that Cheney is out to get him, like his readers seem to do. So, it won't reach the MSM.

My first intro to peak oil was your site. After a while, I found out that while a lot of your points were important and correct, and also that some were inaccurate, "alarmist", or overly pessimistic. The Oil Drum gave more valuable numbers and critical examination of claims, both by doomers and cornucopians, than your site. Should your site get the credit for "waking me up", even though it was for high publicity and oratory skill rather than accuracy? Should I give credit to Mike, who did the same for you, with even more speculation and inaccuracy? I don't think that's reasonable. The attention gathered by you, and even more for Mike, would simply have been unsustainable hadn't other people followed up with critical examination and discussion.


Of course it would have been unsustainable w/o the efforts of others. Did I say otherwise? Don't put words in my mouth or attribute ideas to me that I have not said or put forth.

I'm not saying you need to give credit to anybody. But back off with the allegations just a bit for now? The guy's office got destroyed, $20,000 in damage, etc. and here you are accussing him of making it some publicity stunt? Come on buddy.

Imagine if Stuart's (or Dave or West Texas, et) office got vandalized by a meth cartel, $20,000 damage was done, and somebody came on here and said he thinks it's a publicity Stuart because he wants more traffic here at TOD? Well whether you agree with Stuart or not, I think it'd be a pretty f--ked up thing to say until there is evidence of that. And I'd call you out for behaving like a a--hole in THAT particualar context just like I am right now in this context.



If I had the impression that Stuart (or Dave or West Texas etc.) were, well, completely off his rocker, I might have been suspicious, yes. I would give the benefit of doubt (and I do with this guy, I said I believe it's a meth ring behind it), but not if that meant accepting his conspiracy theories.

When I said that your (and his) efforts were unsustainable, that's what I meant. If it wasn't for others examining your claims, you both would have done more harm than good. Most likely, Mike Ruppert does more harm than good even now, since he associates peak oil with a good old-fashioned conspiracy theory.

I second your sentiments.  I think Michael Ruppert deserves some respect here.  He does lay out some conspiracy theories, but he also cites his work well and explores indepth.  For that matter, you could say that Matt Simmons is a conspiracy theorist.

I don't think this is a publicity stunt.  Ruppert does not make a lot of money running FTW.  From what I see, he is sincere in his efforts to uncover the truth about the issues he pursues, but makes some leaps from that evidence that others might not.

Congrats TOD on another milestone.  Onward and upward.

Ruppert stumbled into PO researching other things IIRC, like the influx of drugmoney in the US economy. He uncovered drugrunning by the CIA. Hardly a conspiracy "theorist".
That the Saudi authorities are secretive and probably deceptive, isn't a conspiracy theory. That Dick Cheney has a secret command network that supervised 9/11, that's a conspiracy theory. I imagine that takes quite a leap from the avaliable evidence.

It's clear that theories such as these hurt the important message. Ironically, they were probably "profitable" as attention-grabbers for peak oil in the beginning, but as I've said, that attention wouldn't have been sustainable unless others had taken up the lead and done far better work.

I don't know if Ruppert makes a lot of money on FTW (what about his books, though?), and I do think he's basically sincere. I believe his involvement in uncovering drug operations is the reason for the raid. However, to most  observers he's a conspiracy theorist, and distrust would be reasonable.

I second the positive comments supporting Mike Ruppert and Dale Allen Pfeifer for being among the earliest to bring comment and PO to the net, I was reading FTW years before TOD even existed. A lot more people thought PO was nonsense then than now.

I don't personally share some of Mike's other ideas but he does a pretty good job of researching and presenting his arguments. I do think the true story behind 9/11 is probably significantly different from the 'official version', I find it hard to believe Cheney actually organised the attacks but I do not rule out that possibility entirely.

Perhaps you would be wise to re-evaluate your prejudices? Turning your thinking on its head: if Mike was right about PO years ago when many said he was nuts to think so, may he also be right about some other things that you think are off the wall?

Even if Mike and FTW may have a different approach than we do here at TOD, they still deserve our support in a time like this.  

If there's anything that continues to be reinforced by this site on a daily basis, it's that there's room in PO blogistan for a lot of perspectives and ideological viewpoints...

Exactly. Look at all these original articles that are archived for free:

some of the best stuff in the po blogistan was originally published on FTW, including Dmitry Orlov's original 3 part piece and Dale Allen Pfeiffer's articles including the Eating Fossil Fuels one.

Now let's say you think Mike is a raving nut and you don't trust him cause he's a "conspiracy theorist" and is making a whopping (maybe) $1 per book royalty from his book. Okay fine, you're perfectly entitled to that opinion, but realize he did build a platform from which some of the best work on PO was launched. And in order to build a platform on  issues like these when you're essentially in the wilderness w/o much company (1998-2004) you're going to need to have a certain brashness to your personality. That's the only way you're going to build a platform from which other endeavors can be launched.

Had Dale's article, for instance, just been posted to some anonymous blog it might have gotten lost in the noise. But because it was on FTW it got a lot of attention and now a few years later New Society has given Dale a book deal out of that article ("Eating Fossil Fuels".)

So even if you don't like Mike's style or  think he is a nutty conspircy theorist or whatever, I think a bit of support even if it is just mental/emotional is due at a time like this.  Vinterman making accusations it's all a publicity stunt is in my mind the height of assaninity and I'd say that even if I wasn't friends with Mike.




congrats on the 2 M mark.

if you're going to use cool words Matt, please do spell them correctly.

asininity, n.

   1. Utterly stupid or silly: asinine behavior.
   2. Of, relating to, or resembling an ass.

[Latin asinnus, of an ass, from asinus, ass.]
asi·ninely adv.
asi·nini·ty (-nn-t) n.


Now you may think, perhaps from being in academia, that when one screws up it is their own fault and they should take responsibility for said screw up(s). Me, having been trained in the law, realize there is always somebody else responsible for one's screw ups.

In the case of my misspelling, I put the responsibility squarely on YOUR shoulders. Oh yes, it is your fault I can't spell. After all, there is no spell check on this here bad boy and thus the TOD administration are the ones responsible for my "gramamtical negligence."



Personally, Matt, I prefer public dumbassery, which is more proletarian, and sounds contemptuous when spoken.
Was that one I came up with? I need to go trademark along with "pandemic of brainlessness" which Kunstler came up with but will soon be paying royalties on to me cause one of us took a class on trademark law and remembered a thing or two. Then I'm going to go on his blog and say, "bitch betta have my royalties." Muhahahahahahaha!



If you make doombatish comments, you can expect people to scratch their heads a bit.
That comment is pretty insensitive. You should definitely read more into the issue before making such statements. Fortunately for you, the replies to your post have more than dissuaded any similar ideas others may have been holding.
i know the united states has a stake in this because one of the canidates there wants to further nationalize their oil company.
Congratulations on the success of the site.  I have found it to be tremendously informative and enlightening over the past year.  I visit the site nearly everday and usually several times a day.  I have tried to contribute what little I can with a few posts and comments.  I am not a scientist or an economist, just a lawyer with a great deal of interest in this most important subject.  
Lawyers are great at research and writing, often having to master mulitple topics not necessarily related to law. A criminal defense attorney, for instance, might need to be a lay-expert (not an expert witness) on topics ranging from arson to ballistics to forencics to how dead bodies decompose to gang warfare, etc.

So maybe you shouldn't sell yourself short.



Thanks Matt.  You are right.  In my practice I have developed quite a bit of knowledge of the medical field and the police and criminal justice fields for example.  I am learning a lot from this site and from others re the oil and gas industry and related fields.  And....I have always had an interest in urban planning issues, even as a youngster.  I almost went the urban planning route, but law school had too much appeal back then. :)
How old are you are practicing crim? I was going to work at crim defense firm but then sort of stumbled into the prophet of doom business.



Hi Matt:  Just back from court.  I practiced "police law" or otherwise known as labor law with a focus on peace officer disciplinary issues for about six years.  There were always some collateral criminal law issues as well.  I then transitioned into representing employers in workers compensation defense (work injuries), which I have been doing for the last six years. Hence my exposure to medical issues as I take a lot of depositions of physicians.
I wonder perhaps if TOD is a kind of Super Brain that knows more about Peak Oil than any one commentator. Recent highpoints include debunking grain ethanol and Saudi output projections. Without TOD there may be no high profile counterbalance to the irrational exuberance of the MSM. It is said that when a bunch of people guess the number of jelly beans in jar the average of the guesses is usually accurate. Switch the jelly beans to oil depletion scenarios then all realistic possibilities have probably been covered. So far the MSM is not buying that 'average' scenario of tough times.
As both a journalist and a farmer, I have to tell you guys I just love this site!

I can't think of a more important one on the Internet. Every day's an ongoing drama as this thing unwinds, and it's great to have professionals around who can interpret the great story of energy depletion without a bunch of spin.

Bravo, y'all ... Now it's time to get ready for the Hurricane Watch.

PO is getting more and more acknowledgment, which is a good thing. A negative side effect is I can't keep up with the postings and comments.

Probably already posted here , but my newspaper http://www, had its'complete monthly bulletin dedicated to energy and specifically mentioned PO. Unfortunately PO was regarded as a "theory" of which the debat was still going on. I thought the question of "if" has been answerred and what remains is the "when". On top of that, the leading article in the magazine featured Mr. D. Yergin assuring the reader that all problems with oil nowadays are above-the-ground phenomena and that geological limitations will not occur for the next 100 years or so. Further on there was an article referring to Twilight in the Desert but this was burried behind other, less interesting, stories.

Behind the front page was a 2-page Volkswagen ad, and nowhere I could find even a small note on the relation between fossil fuels and food production.

It was disappointing; they could at least have provided TOD's url :-)

that should read
And NYMEX oil just nudges past the record to $75.40 intraday, closing at $75.19. That should increase our readership yet again.

TOD has become essential, and I suspect it is feeding into our collective and individual thinking in very beneficial ways. I've noticed a gradual change in the meme at TOD over the past few months. It seems to me that the general feeling is that the peak is looming very near--nearer than many of us really expected. But we are somehow less manic about it.

If that's true, it's healthy. The world will need a few clear-thinking, unsurprised heads.  

I would just like to add as an occasional commenter here that this is the best and most respected Peak Oil site on the net.  As I research both AGW and Peak Oil I continually find myself referencing this site on a daily basis for more information.

BTW I know Mike Ruppert has some way out theories however he also has some questions about 9/11 that do not have satisfactory answers.  If all of these questions had reasonable answers then I would be the first to dismiss him as a crazy conspiracy theorist.  However these questions do not have a easy answers and I for one am still wondering when they will be answered.

I read the Dale Alan Pfieffer articles and this is where I first learnt of Peak Oil.  FTW is a good site and it is sad to see it run foul of people without conscience.

Congratulations to the TOD team!
TOD is clearly the best site out there and has set a new standard in collective thinking!
Add my kudos. I have become spoiled by all the reader input and discussion at TOD.  I read Energy Bulletin, too, but am frustrated by the lack of reader input.  Obviously, one will always have a lot of "noise" with a free for all, but, in essence there is a form of peer review here which, I trust, gets us closer to the truth.  Yes, this site, like the web itself, is a kind of organism, a form of mostly intelligenct life, which oozes over the planet and, I trust, is a source of good.
I'd like to add my thanks to the editors and regular contributors. I've been reading TOD almost daily for six months now and have learned an enormous amount. The level of principled dialogue is generally very high, and the commitment to reasoned argument is extraordinary. I hope to join in the discussions soon, especially around questions relating to sustainability and values.
Be bold. Comment now.

Love your moniker!

Regarding Mike Ruppert... I first stumbled across his site because of his 9/11 theories.  I would read him talking about something called Peak Oil, but the impact of what he was talking about never really sunk in until I read his book.  The initial chapter discusses Peak Oil and made a believer of me.  (Before it, I had always assumed that the Caspian was the next Persian Gulf--I guess it was something I had in the back of my mind from late 1990s news reports.)  Whether or not one believes US Govt complicity in 9/11 is neither here nor there as far as this board is concerned.  (Though I will say I think Ruppert makes a compelling argument.)

How I came across TOD was from a mention on Kevin Drum's blog--I think it was ca. 4/05.  Have been an almost daily reader (and a very infrequent commenter).  Thanks to all for the time and effort put in.  I appreciate the high level of expertise and general level of courtesy shown to each other by all participants here.

I have been reading the site for several months, and very much appreciate the insights it provides.

My own contribution to the field has been an article explaining the peak oil situation to insurance executives. A link to it can be found at

In writing this article, my approach was the following:

  1. Keep it short - 4 pages, including 3 graphs

  2. Keep it simple - The graphs are simpler than most, and have headers that explain what is happening.

  3. Make it relevant to the reader - This article includes several paragraphs about changes that may affect the insurance industry.

  4. Back off a little on the conclusions - New readers aren't quite ready for die-off or TEOTWAWKI.

  5. Use references that the readers will be comforatable with. Here, I assume that most readers voted for Bush in the last election, and choose my references accordingly.

I think that there is a need for others to get the word out to the groups they have contact with, using whatever approach works for them. If using copies of my article is helpful as a starting point, it can easily by printed off, preferably on a color printer.
Wow.  Nice work!
Great article, and interesting to see from the insurance perspective.
Way to go, Gail!

best, Dave

I know the executives for one insurer (23rd largest US insurer) and will get this to them.  Probably to the guy in a new strategic planning slot they created.  Nice introduction.  I agree that starting out with visions of the apocalypse are counterproductive.
err lol
how do you count unique views ?
all those with dynamic ips .. and theres a lot of us are going to show up as unique hits each time ?
Having been her since July or Aug of 2005, i can honestly say...Well done! TOD'ers.....this is the most informational place for oil related issues, your first hand knowledge on the issues at hand are second to none! Well Done!!! Thank You!
My first visit to TOD in a long time and not surprised that the site continues to flourish. Since discovering it when Katrina struck, I have been impressed and sometimes awed by the breadth of knowledge and largely well informed debate.

Great work too,Gail. I had seen reference to your piece in something Shepherd Bliss was writing, so it was good to read it in full. I hope it succeeded in getting attention beyond the PO converted.

TOD is tuly an excellent blog.  The breadth and depth of expertise demonstrated by the contributors is most impressive and extends well beyond the confines of the the economics and geology of oil (as if that were not in itself impressive--which it most certainly is).