Jump to content


Photo

Peak Oil - Bull or Bear?


106 replies to this topic

Poll: Peak Oil - Bull or Bear? (104 member(s) have cast votes)

Peak Oil - Overhyped alarmism

  1. I'm a Peak Oil bull. It's over-hyped alarmism (5 votes [4.81%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.81%

  2. I'm a Peak Oil bear. This has the potential to take down our civilisation (55 votes [52.88%])

    Percentage of vote: 52.88%

  3. Undecided. It will hurt a but, but ultimately technology will resolve the issue (34 votes [32.69%])

    Percentage of vote: 32.69%

  4. Undecided. I don't really know much about it, thats why I am looking around this board (10 votes [9.62%])

    Percentage of vote: 9.62%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#21 malco

malco

    Tri-Centurion

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 440 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 23 May 2006 - 08:56 PM

Ok i was wrong the ammonia is from natural gas not oil. See here

This article also makes the point that there are other ways of obtaining ammonia, so this isn't really such as big issue as some people make out. I think there could still some cost implications though.


It's the cost implications that are the point. Peak Oil does not mean we run out of oil, it means we have to pay more and more yet we will slowly get less and less in return.

It's a bit like riding a bicycle. Going downhill with the wind behind you you are laughing and you can carry a couple of passengers no problem, but when the road turns up and the wind swings against you then no matter how hard you work you can't keep up the pace you had. You have to sling off the passengers and just to keep moving at all you really have to sweat.

It is surprisingly difficult to get this point across to a society conditioned to believe that oil is either cheap and plentiful or else it is "running out". We will never run out of oil, but the days of downhill and tailwinds do appear to be over. The possibility of die-off comes about not because there is not enough to go around, but because under threat societies will close in on themselves and act with blind selfishness. Look at the world today - there is more than enough of everything to go around to satisfy basic needs but nonetheless 80% of humanity leads a hard life utterly alien to the 20% who live within the comfort zone created by knowledge and cheap energy.

I have a suspicion that knowledge and cheap energy go hand in hand. The cheaper energy is, the more complex a society can be, the greater the sophistication of products and experiences and hence the higher the educational aspiration. But if energy gets expensive, then the division of labour unwinds and there is a reduction in sophistication and hence a reduction in knowledge. How many people in the world could build a PC from basic materials? Nobody can, because the PC you are using is the product of effort and knowledge by thousands of strangers who know nothing of each other and each contributes but one page of a very thick book. Provided the system holds together, all well and good, but should there be major disruptions, this could lead to knowledge disconnects that accumulate to a decline in technical competence.

Or, to put it another way, there is a very great amount of informal knowledge in the world that exists only because of the habit of people going to work each day in specialisms and using it. But if their work was interrupted for any length of time, that habit of knowledge would disappear, because people would forget, and so little of it is written down.

The dangers of Peak Oil are very subtle, but extend so deep into our society that in fact the chronic impact could be profound.
Will economics be single-handed?

#22 malco

malco

    Tri-Centurion

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 440 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 07 June 2006 - 08:04 PM

There are some interesting production charts posted on this new thread at PeakOil.com:

http://www.peakoil.c...pic20921-0.html

Basically these are IEA data. They show that global production has not changed in the last couple of years and that there is a "rolling over the top" tendency to the trend. 2007 would see a fall in production if the trend continues.

On the other hand, the CEO of TOTAL has predicted PO not until about 2020 or even later if global demand can be restrained.

Make your own mind up. I have come to follow this principle: that whatever the experts say, no matter how highly qualified they appear to be, it's what actually happens that counts. I'd say the message in the actual data is disturbing, to put it mildly. Equally, it could just be a dip or shelf whilst new projects are brought on line.

We shall just have to wait and see.
Will economics be single-handed?

#23 No6

No6

    Tri-Millennium Guru

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,667 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Garden

Posted 12 June 2006 - 07:24 PM

This is from Money Morning. They better find those new projects fast.

Posted Image

The International Energy Agency projects global demand for crude oil will reach 121 million barrels a day by 2030. That's a 47.5% increase from today's level. But even if such a level of production could be reached, it would only be at much higher prices.

There is virtually no spare capacity in global oil production as it is. Now Chinese demand is forecast to double, while US demand grows a further 25%. With demand already so close to exceeding supply, would you bet a 4x4 jeep on oil trading at $70 per barrel 25 years from now?

#24 malco

malco

    Tri-Centurion

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 440 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 12 June 2006 - 09:27 PM

We're clearly at one of those points in history where we extrapolate ahead and our vision does not make sense. The world will never produce 120 mb/d of oil, that much has been made clear by analysts and is clear enough to even one with superficial knowledge of the industry.

I am reminded of Victorians who projected that London would be buried under so many feet of horse manure by 1920 if then current traffic increases were to happen. We're in the same sort of position now, but none of us can figure how our consumer lifestyle can spread to billions more people.

Obviously it can't. The energy crisis is primarily political rather than technical. There would be more than enough fossil fuels IF WE USED THEM EFFECTIVELY. The current model of society is consumer anarchy, with governments having little real authority to control the indulgent whims of the fatted masses. This is why there is so much waste. If you want to kill a child pedestrian, our society has little real objection provided a motor car is used. I would suggest that the innovation will be a change to some kind of authoritarian rule that constrains indulgence. This has to be the case for reasons that go beyond oil depletion. We can't build all the airports to satisfy the demand for budget holidays, and we can't build all the roads to satisfy how much the kids want to drive.

Maybe people will rediscover how useful the bicycle + train or bus combination can be. Or they will accept driving quite small and efficient cars (which would be a lot more fun than current "safe" cars anyway). There is no magic energy solution to move on to.

Maybe we are dumber than yeast....
Will economics be single-handed?

#25 DrBubb

DrBubb

    Tri-Millennium Guru

  • Super Admins
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 92,346 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hong Kong & London
  • Interests:Trading and investing in stocks and commodities. Writing articles on related subjects, while building this website. I am interested in creating ways for communities

Posted 06 August 2006 - 06:12 PM

No6,
Those are huge rates of growth.
If the oil does materialise what will fill its place? Coal? Uranium? Something new?

Or will we need to learn to live with much less energy?

- -

SOME BELIEVE in Magic and/or Hidden Reserves

(this is from a GEI advert):
There are 71 billion barrels of oil waiting to be discovered in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico... There are another 85 billion barrels off the coast of West Africa... And the waters that surround the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea could hold as many as 300 billion barrels... But the greatest secret of all is how much oil lies – untapped – beneath U.S. soil. You'll be amazed when you see the numbers.

Even better, I want to show you which companies are drilling this oil – so you can get there first. It's all there in my free report, The Oil Story No One's Telling.

@: http://www.dailyweal...CFScJFQod2mY07w

-goes on, with some intriguing comments-

In recent weeks, for example, DailyWealth readers learned:

+ Why natural gas is much cheaper than oil right now... and the best stock to play it.

+ Why timber has been the best-performing asset of the past 40 years... and how ordinary people are taking advantage of timber investments right now.

+ Where to find the best CD rates in the entire world, paying over 8%.

+ A unique way to own gold and silver that could double your money in the next few years.

Why water might be one of the best investments for the next decade, and the best way to make an investment right now.

MAYBE I will have a look one day
The market is "bipolar", swinging back and forth from a focus on Inflation to Deflation. Bet on swings; and stay flexible. What are bipolar markets? See: http://tinyurl.com/GEI-Manix

#26 needle

needle

    Centurion

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 191 posts

Posted 06 August 2006 - 11:37 PM

I voted for 'it has the potential to take down our civilisation' because it does.


Doesnt mean that it will...

#27 Sarah Bell

Sarah Bell

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 30 posts

Posted 07 August 2006 - 10:05 PM

It definately has the potential to take the whole planet into utter chaos.

Without a major flu or other pandemic we are just too overpopulated to feed ourselves without oil.

#28 HollandPark

HollandPark

    Millennium man

  • Members2
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,000 posts

Posted 11 August 2006 - 06:46 AM

Daniel Yergin Day - was declared by this Blog when Oil broke $75:

In a column in Forbes Magazine, published on 11/1/04, Daniel Yergin, in response to a question about the future direction of oil prices, dismissed concerns about oil supplies and asserted that oil prices on 11/1/05 would at $38 per barrel. Note that oil prices exceeded $60 in the summer of 2005, prior to the hurricanes.

In my opinion, Mr. Yergin serves as an excellent symbol of the major oil company/major oil exporter/energy analyst group. And since oil prices are now trading at close to $76 per barrel--twice Mr. Yergin's prediction--I hereby designate July 13, 2006 as "Daniel Yergin Day," in honor of Mr. Yergin's continued efforts to, in effect, persuade Americans to continue driving large debt financed vehicles, on long commutes to and from large mortgages.

One of the little ironies about the Peak Oil debate is that it is those who are trying their best to warn Americans about the dangers posed by Peak Oil---Matt Simmons; Colin Campbell; Kenneth Deffeyes; Boone Pickens, Jim Kunstler etc.--who are most often blamed for rising oil prices. I think that it is just the opposite.

If you believe Matt Simmons, et al, about the future direction of energy prices, you will drastically reduce your overall consumption, especially your energy consumption, by living in a small energy efficient home, close to where you work--which would ideally allow you to walk or take mass transit to work, or at least result in a short commute.

In my opinion, it is those who are telling us that Peak Oil is decades away--such as ExxonMobil, Opec and Yergin--who are most responsible for, in effect, encouraging Americans to continue driving $50,000 SUV's on 50 mile roundtrips to and from $500,000 mortgages in the suburbs.

My personal take on this issue is that we have to kill consumption--via a large tax on energy consumption, offset by tax cuts elsewhere--before consumption kills us.

Jeffrey J. Brown is an independent petroleum geologist in the Dallas, Texas area. e-mail: westexas@aol.com

@: http://graphoilogy.blogspot.com/

#29 andrew_uk

andrew_uk

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 8 posts

Posted 11 August 2006 - 09:38 PM

My view is peak oil is years away as demand will fall especially as hard tie will push people towards efficent cars e.g. like 1970's.
Long term we'll find new energy resources e.g. Hydrogen with power from nuclear.

So I think the whole idea of peak oil is a scare tactic that environmentalists will cling to but in reality will not materialise.

Though i do expect oil to never be $35 a barrel ever again. In fact as the economy has survived $70 the producers will maintain this price level. I even expect supply reductions if we all hit a recession to maintain this price as the middle east countries want money/goods not a strong world economy.

PS The hotel islands in Dubai tells me a lot about oil being exchanged for real things not paper money.


quick additional:

I know that oil = food (my mate is a farmer and explained this to me)

7 barrels of oil = 1 ton of crops or similar.

If world population keeps growing oil demand will grow but i expect a major reduction in world population.

#30 malco

malco

    Tri-Centurion

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 440 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 12 August 2006 - 07:48 PM

My view is peak oil is years away as demand will fall especially as hard tie will push people towards efficent cars e.g. like 1970's.
Long term we'll find new energy resources e.g. Hydrogen with power from nuclear.

So I think the whole idea of peak oil is a scare tactic that environmentalists will cling to but in reality will not materialise.

Some would agree with you. For instance Cambridge Energy Research Associates predict that supply will outpace demand for at least another decade:

http://www.canada.co...t...299&k=63352

On the other hand, Ali Bakhtiari, former Chief Advisor to the Iranian NOC, believes that oil supply will not grow much from where it is now and that we are already in the first stage of the crisis:

http://www.energybul....net/19180.html

The CERA conclusions are prpbably the upper end of their Monte Carlo type analysis, rather than the Expected Outcome. Its datasets are private, however, so not subject to audit by a wider body of experts. In effect US energy policy is being influenced by a private company's private information. Odd that.

I am a bit sceptical of CERA. They have a history of being too optimistic.

You should forget about the Hydrogen Economy, based on nuclear or renewables. It won't happen because the conversion processes are too expensive and inefficient and the Nat Gas needed to produce H2 otherwise will become scarce too. Plus you have distribution and safety issues. There is no replacement for cheap oil - period. There is no idea anywhere - not even a gleam in the eye of an inventor - that promises to replace the convenience and technical performance of cheap oil. It has been a remarkable gift and like locusts we have gorged. The only substitute for cheap oil is - not travelling. Develop an interest in gardening, reading, whatever.

Interestingly, the era of cheap oil may well return briefly in the next recession (which is likely to be a serious one in the West), but it won't last. We may be surprised by how rapidly oil prices go through the roof as we attampt to climb out of the other side of the recession, and find that the "peak" was actually "Twin Peak Oil".

Just keep your eyes peeled and don't let yourself get too set on any specific scenario. Any one of them could happen.
Will economics be single-handed?

#31 No6

No6

    Tri-Millennium Guru

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,667 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Garden

Posted 19 August 2006 - 07:53 PM

I know that oil = food (my mate is a farmer and explained this to me)

7 barrels of oil = 1 ton of crops or similar.

If world population keeps growing oil demand will grow but i expect a major reduction in world population.


A major reduction in world population? What is going to cause this? War, poverty, famine and birth control have all had a go. So, we are waiting for a plague, pandemic, or war to go nuclear or biological? Or a major economic collapse resulting in social disorder, war and mass starvation the likes of which we have never seen before? So far, the human race has adapted and population growth continues.

#32 webmaster

webmaster

    Administrator

  • Root Admin
  • PipPipPip
  • 355 posts

Posted 19 August 2006 - 08:46 PM

A major reduction in world population?

COULD come from a decline in the fertlity rate - which is happening already

#33 alternative-energy

alternative-energy

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 33 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 August 2006 - 02:36 PM

New to this forum so don't know if this video has been posted before.
I think its worth a look and so is Stephen Leeb's 'Oil Factor Book'
Watch through the adverts and hear some about 'Hydrogen Corporation'

The interviewer is a blast... a grade A ass.
http://www.thestreet...s/10301573.html

I'm trying to learn how to inflation proof myself... is it possible?

#34 Randall Herbert

Randall Herbert

    Centurion

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 160 posts

Posted 23 August 2006 - 10:45 PM

The other thing I am suprised no one has mentioned is the implications for food production. I believe that ammonia, extracted from oil, is extensively used as fertilizer on crops to increase production. As the price of oil goes up, so will the price of food, and when it runs out, production will drop. This is especially worrying as the global population is still rising.


And there lies the conundrum...

How many decades can you get out of a biofuel crop field without resource to hydrocarbons for feedstock? One year perhaps.....

The soil alone will not support it for long, as we have seen from the massive depletion of minerals from our standard vegetable crops over the past century.

I'd be surprised if we are anywhere close to being strategically sufficent in farming these days, if there is a prolonged fuel shock we're in deep Shite.

#35 alternative-energy

alternative-energy

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 33 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 August 2006 - 11:57 AM

Bloomberg article on Peak Oil

http://www.bloomberg...6...&refer=news

Is this concept now becoming main stream? If it is what effect is it likely to have on the market as investors hedge against it?

I'm trying to learn how to inflation proof myself... is it possible?

#36 malco

malco

    Tri-Centurion

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 440 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 04 September 2006 - 09:31 PM

An interesting profile of a US Army article:

http://www.energybul....net/20008.html

Not exactly reassuring even if it is only half true!
Will economics be single-handed?

#37 No6

No6

    Tri-Millennium Guru

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,667 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Garden

Posted 07 September 2006 - 08:12 PM

An interesting profile of a US Army article:

http://www.energybul....net/20008.html

Not exactly reassuring even if it is only half true!


“Without such major boundary revisions, we shall never see a more peaceful Middle East,”

This policy is about three thousand years old.

#38 alex a

alex a

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 71 posts

Posted 10 September 2006 - 09:00 PM

I e-mailed my local constituency MP to make her aware of the situation -
Message :
"Dear

I would like to draw your attention to the matter of Peak Oil which is
going to a be a problem that affects us all. A good explanation of the
scenario and effects are explained by the attached link. The conclusions
are somewhat lurid but I find it difficult to agree with any them.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

I have done a lot of online research and I am of the opinion that Peak
Oil is either occuring now or will be certainly occuring sometime
within the next ten years. The recent quadrupling in oil prices would
continue as prices per barrel could reach $100/$200 a barrel. The world
would then go into the second great depression- at the moment I don't
believe there is anything that will bring us out of it. As it says on
the website the world's financial system is based on cheap oil and it
may collapse when it realises that oil is running out.

Alternative energy sources are currently nowhere near the level required
to be able to substitute for oil. I don't believe Bio-diesel is an
option as currently the return on energy invested is not good and
besides which the world needs food more than it needs fuel oil. The
Alaksan oil sands also look like an extremely poor substitute.

Would you not agree that problem dwarves all other problems that we are
facing as a country and a planet?

Without Oil & Gas we will not be able to support schools, hospitals, the
elderly , build houses or any of the basic functions that support
civilised life. Without oil I don't think the planet can support
anywhere near the current 6 billion inhabitants. In particular
fertilizer which is produced from Natural Gas is required to support the
current level of population. Ironically Peak Oil may reduce the effects
of global warming by reducing the amount of fossil fuels that we can
burn- although it may make things worse as countries may use coal to
produce petrol with increased emissions until that in turn runs out.

I believe that the Government and Opposition need to get together now to
take action immediately on this issue. Please could you let me know what
you are doing about this extremely grave situation? "

I got a reply saying she was on holiday - but a few weeks later I still hadn't got a reply so I followed up with :

"Any update on this? Since my e-mail a quick search on google news for Peak Oil displays the following headlines:

Peak-oil theory warns tank's almost empty
http://www.theaustra...670-643,00.html
The Australian, Australia - 11 Aug 2006
FORGET pipeline problems in Alaska. The real elephant in the corner is "peak oil". This issue is in the same category as global warming - although there is a division of opinion as to whether or not it's real, it is probably prudent to assume the worse-case option

Crisis Overload: Peak Oil, Peak Grain and Peak Water
http://www.counterbias.com/710.html
CounterBias.com - 4 Aug 2006
... According to Christopher Brodie, a partner at UK-based commodities hedge fund Krom River, this tussle over grain adds a Hobson's choice to the Peak Oil dilemma ...

Peak oil and fragility of global oil supply
http://www.kuwaittim...artid=255999417
Kuwait Times, Kuwait - 13 Aug 2006
... This involves the concept called "Peak Oil"-a shorthand way of describing a critical geological concept that you ignore at your peril. ...

BYE BYE PETROLEUM
http://www.corporate...rg.uk/?lid=2714
Corporate Watch News, UK - 17 Aug 2006
...Colin Campbell, honorary chairman of ASPO international, began the conference with a prediction that peak oil would bring a succession of price spikes followed by global recession. He warned that current financial structures would be threatened, as the power to control money shifts, and suggested that a new era of geopolitics would emerge, with energy rich Russia ascending while energy depleted US and Europe compete with China for finite resources...

http://www.resourcei...asp?relid=22303
.....In May U.S. production fell 459,000 barrels a day year on year. In May U.K. production fell 292,000 barrels a day. Mexican data saw a 150,000 barrels a day slide and statistics from Norway saw a 226,000 barrel a day fall.
For 2006 as a whole production is down by 196,000 barrels a day in the U.K. and 503,000 barrels a day in the U.S., 229,000 barrels a day in Norway and by 24,000 barrels a day in Mexico.
French company Total [NYSE:TOT] saw production - which may well rise again it is true - fall 9% year on year. BP [NYSE:BP] said it will struggle to meet its targets for 2006, 4.2 million barrels a day despite 1 million barrels a day from its venture with TNK [OTCPK:TNKBF] in Russia. Shell [NYSE:RDS-B] produced more in 2003 than it does now and the only companies who have put on big production outside of Eni [NYSE:E] in Italy have done it by buying other companies, ConocoPhillips [NYSE:COP], Chevron [NYSE:CVX] and so on.......

Those were just a few of the selection. I see that John Reid suggested that we are facing "probably the most sustained period of severe threat since the end of the second world war," - we are but its Peak Oil that is threatening all of us far more than a handful of Islamic terrorists. Our prosperity, health, wealth and happiness has been based since the end of the nineteenth century on cheap oil - this is about to change and soon.

I see the current Government thinking of this is that Peak Oil is not before 2030. I seriously doubt this - Try somewhere between now and 2011-and in any case China and India's growing demand will ensure an unbridgeable supply gap well before then.
"John Hemming: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate the Department has made of when global production of conventional crude oil will peak.
Malcolm Wicks: The Government's assessment of the remaining lifespan of global oil reserves is set out in the Energy White Paper 2003 "Our energy future--creating a low carbon economy". Paragraph 6.15 of the White Paper notes that "Globally, conventional oil reserves are sufficient to meet projected demand for around 30 years, although new discoveries will be needed to renew reserves. Together with nonconventional reserves such as oil shales and improvements in technology, there is the potential for oil reserves to last twice as long".

This is consistent with the latest assessment by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in its 2004 World Energy Outlook. The IEA concludes that ". . . global production of conventional oil will not peak before 2030 if the necessary investments are made."

The Government remain committed to working with producers, consumers and the international community to improve the conditions for investment in the international oil sector, as well as implementing policies to maximise the economic recovery of the UK's own oil (and gas) reserves and to ease the UK economy away from power supplied primarily through fossil fuel supply. We are also supporting efforts to promote greater transparency in reporting of global oil reserves. "

One further piece of evidence that peak oil appears imminent. There is a website - theoildrum.com where various Geologists try to predict and analyse peak production. One thing they are concerned about is that all of the largest oil producers are starting to show declines

http://www.theoildru...3/1416#comments

I thought that it would be interesting to compare the decline since December in world crude + condensate production to the decline in production from the top 10 net oil exporters (based on the 2004 list of top exporters).

As of the May, 2006 EIA numbers, the world is down 1.3% since December, an annual decline rate of 3.1% per year, but the top 10 oil exporters are down 3.0%, an annual decline rate of 7.2%.

Note that consumption is growing quite rapidly in most of the exporting countries, and note that in most cases domestic consumption is satisfied before oil is exported. In the captioned article, I showed, using my "Export Land" model, how a 25% drop in oil production and a 20% increase in consumption (over a five year period) would lead to a 70% drop in net oil exports.

I estimate that net oil exports from the top exporters are probably down by 4% to 5% (over a five month period), an annual decline rate of as much as 12% per year, which suggests that exports from the top exporters are falling about three to four times faster than world oil production is falling

As I have been relentlessly pointing out, I think that we are looking at a series of bidding cycles for declining net oil export capacity, with the oil going to the high bidders and with the losers having to reduce consumption. Leanan, on The Oil Drum, has documented several case histories of poorer countries having to reduce consumption. Soon, the developed and rapidly developing countries will be bidding against each other, instead of bidding against regions like Africa

On a positive note (!) the biggest hopeful are recent development is advances in solar technology:

http://www.energybul....net/19262.html
We approach this news as current and former public electric utility executives, sympathetic with consumer and environmental concerns. South Africa and California technologies rely on the same alloy -- called CIGS (for copper-indium-gallium-selenide) -- deposited in an extremely thin layer on a flexible surface. Both companies claim that the technology reduces solar cell production costs by a factor of 4-5. That would bring the cost to or below that of delivered electricity in a large fraction of the world

I believe that it should shortly be mandatory that all new building developments should have as a minimum solar power for hot water tanks, and that by a certain date all new developments should also have photo-voltaic designed into them. Also any houses with gardens should have water butts to try and combat a) flooding and :unsure: drought.

You may note I haven't mentioned global warming - although I think its a serious problem - mainly due to rising sea levels. However given the fact that the effects for the UK tends to along the lines of "Future balmy Mediterranean Climate will lead to more vineyards and olive trees and UK seaside resorts becoming top tourist destination" its not really a vote winner is it?"

Yesterday I got a reply:

"Thank you for your email about 'Peak Oil'; I share your concerns about the future of our oil supply. A broad energy mix with less reliance on oil and gas would be in the best interests of the UK and the global economy.

The Government are currently conducting an energy review to update their 2003 Energy White Paper. As you might be aware, the Conservative Party is also conducting an energy review which will be an evidence-based project. The review will work alongside the Quality of Life Policy Group, set up by David Cameron and affect our environment and the quality of our lives. The energy review will be published early next year and the policy group will report in July 2007. I am more than happy to pass on your points in Consideration as part of the review.

Thank you for taking time to get in touch. It is always important for me to hear the thoughts and views of those whom I represent here in Westminster. Please do not hesitate to get in touch if I can be of any further assistance."

#39 DrBubb

DrBubb

    Tri-Millennium Guru

  • Super Admins
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 92,346 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hong Kong & London
  • Interests:Trading and investing in stocks and commodities. Writing articles on related subjects, while building this website. I am interested in creating ways for communities

Posted 11 September 2006 - 07:33 AM

nice letter, alex

the response is serious- as it should be. but more can be done
The market is "bipolar", swinging back and forth from a focus on Inflation to Deflation. Bet on swings; and stay flexible. What are bipolar markets? See: http://tinyurl.com/GEI-Manix

#40 No6

No6

    Tri-Millennium Guru

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,667 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Garden

Posted 11 September 2006 - 07:25 PM

I e-mailed my local constituency MP to make her aware of the situation -
Message :
"Dear

I would like to draw your attention to the matter of Peak Oil which is
going to a be a problem that affects us all. A good explanation of the
scenario and effects are explained by the attached link. The conclusions
are somewhat lurid but I find it difficult to agree with any them.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

I have done a lot of online research and I am of the opinion that Peak
Oil is either occuring now or will be certainly occuring sometime
within the next ten years. The recent quadrupling in oil prices would
continue as prices per barrel could reach $100/$200 a barrel. The world
would then go into the second great depression- at the moment I don't
believe there is anything that will bring us out of it. As it says on
the website the world's financial system is based on cheap oil and it
may collapse when it realises that oil is running out.

Alternative energy sources are currently nowhere near the level required
to be able to substitute for oil. I don't believe Bio-diesel is an
option as currently the return on energy invested is not good and
besides which the world needs food more than it needs fuel oil. The
Alaksan oil sands also look like an extremely poor substitute.

Would you not agree that problem dwarves all other problems that we are
facing as a country and a planet?

Without Oil & Gas we will not be able to support schools, hospitals, the
elderly , build houses or any of the basic functions that support
civilised life. Without oil I don't think the planet can support
anywhere near the current 6 billion inhabitants. In particular
fertilizer which is produced from Natural Gas is required to support the
current level of population. Ironically Peak Oil may reduce the effects
of global warming by reducing the amount of fossil fuels that we can
burn- although it may make things worse as countries may use coal to
produce petrol with increased emissions until that in turn runs out.

I believe that the Government and Opposition need to get together now to
take action immediately on this issue. Please could you let me know what
you are doing about this extremely grave situation? "

I got a reply saying she was on holiday - but a few weeks later I still hadn't got a reply so I followed up with :

"Any update on this? Since my e-mail a quick search on google news for Peak Oil displays the following headlines:


Yesterday I got a reply:

"Thank you for your email about 'Peak Oil'; I share your concerns about the future of our oil supply. A broad energy mix with less reliance on oil and gas would be in the best interests of the UK and the global economy.

The Government are currently conducting an energy review to update their 2003 Energy White Paper. As you might be aware, the Conservative Party is also conducting an energy review which will be an evidence-based project. The review will work alongside the Quality of Life Policy Group, set up by David Cameron and affect our environment and the quality of our lives. The energy review will be published early next year and the policy group will report in July 2007. I am more than happy to pass on your points in Consideration as part of the review.

Thank you for taking time to get in touch. It is always important for me to hear the thoughts and views of those whom I represent here in Westminster. Please do not hesitate to get in touch if I can be of any further assistance."


It's an excellent email, but I can't help thinking you got a standard reply. Your MP is probably far too busy claiming her travel expenses for her holiday to have spent time reading that lot. On the other hand, maybe you have an MP that does take it seriously, but they are not the type of people that I have faith in to wake up and smell the coffee.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users