×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Whistleblower Claims IEA Is Downplaying Peak Oil

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the routine-denial dept.

Power 720

Yesterday the Guardian ran a story based on two anonymous sources inside the International Energy Agency who claimed that the agency had distorted key figures on oil reserves. "The world is much closer to running out of oil than official estimates admit, according to a whistleblower at the [IEA] who claims it has been deliberately underplaying a looming shortage for fear of triggering panic buying. The senior official claims the US has played an influential role in encouraging the watchdog to underplay the rate of decline from existing oil fields while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves." Today the IEA released its annual energy outlook and rejected the whistleblowers' charges. The Guardian has an editorial claiming that the economic establishment is too fearful to come clean on the reality of oil suppplies, and makes an analogy with the (marginalized, demonized) economists who warned of a coming economic collapse in 2007.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

720 comments

Bah! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30050860)

There's more light sweet crude under the Dakotas than Saudi Arabia...

More propaganda/Bullplop..

Re:Bah! (0, Troll)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30050934)

Yeah, but we aren't allowed to exploit domestic energy supplies. The NIMBY crowd and enviro-nazi's will see to that, aided by the current political overlords in Washington. Apparently it's better that we keep sending hundreds of billions of dollars overseas than it would be to exploit our own resources and keep some of that money within our borders.

Don't worry though, I'm sure our overlords in the Federal Government will come up with a solution. All we need is more energy conservation and investment in key primary states^W^W^Wethanol to save the day.

Re:Bah! (3, Insightful)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051096)

Yeah, but we aren't allowed to exploit domestic energy supplies. The NIMBY crowd and enviro-nazi's will see to that, aided by the current political overlords in Washington.

Congrats, you just described supply and demand. Oil is cheap, so no one wants to pollute for marginal gains*. Check back in a couple of years or so, and I think you'll find the balance has changed somewhat.

Hopefully, by that point, you'll have learned how not to Godwin yourself.

*There's also a whole commentary about how smart exactly is was for the US to basically outsource everything. Cost of living is cheap, but the blowback's a bitch.

Re:Bah! (2, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051288)

Oil is cheap, so no one wants to pollute for marginal gains*

Employing Americans and keeping money at home instead of sending it to countries that finance extremism is a "marginal gain"?

Hopefully, by that point, you'll have learned how not to Godwin yourself.

You really ought to learn what Godwin's Law is before you start citing it:

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

I don't recall making any comparisons. I used a tongue-in-cheek phrase [urbandictionary.com] to describe environmental extremists that won't be happy until mankind reverts to a hunter-gatherer culture or dies out entirely.

Re:Bah! (1)

Changa_MC (827317) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051360)

Yeah, there's nothing tongue-in-cheek about saying you hate someone, when you hate them.
Invoking the nazis to prove you're right and the other guy is wrong... Godwin said someone would, so it might as well be you.

Re:Bah! (0, Troll)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051390)

Employing Americans and keeping money at home instead of sending it to countries that finance extremism is a "marginal gain"?

At current oil prices, yes.

Also, apologies for the Godwin crack. I just love poking people when they get all huffy. "Enviro-nazis"! SNORT!

Re:Bah! (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051530)

At current oil prices, yes.

So under your economic reality it's better for the House of Saud to employ labor under conditions that resemble slavery while pocketing the bulk of the profits (using some of them to finance Islamic extremism) than it would be for American companies to employ American workers for a honest wage while returning their profits to American shareholders?

That's an interesting conclusion that you've reached.

Re:Bah! (4, Insightful)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051438)

You say "environmental extremeists" as though it's one word.

Environmentalism has a long grey scale that you might be unfamiliar with. And like both current political leanings, there are a lot of other vectors to understand, too.

FWIW, I firmly believe that there's far more oil, pumpable at low cost, than we even know about. The problem isn't exporting oil dollars. The problem isn't exploiting domestic sources. The problem is that burning it blows carbon-oxygen atoms out tailpipes, where they pollute, and ultimately cause atmospheric damage. You can't tell me all of that soot is a good thing.

Re:Bah! (2)

ichthus (72442) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051306)

Firstly, the term "enviro-nazi" has become a meme. I would argue that Godwin hardly applies here.

Secondly, because Godwin's Law [wikipedia.org] does not take into account whether referencing nazis is appropriate to the discussion, it's become a half-assed method of trying to avoid any meaningful rebuttal all together -- usually by nazis. You're not a nazi, are you?

Re:Bah! (0, Flamebait)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051338)

You're not a nazi, are you?

Actually, I am. Bastards get results.

meaningful rebuttal

Yes, let's ignore everything I said except the bit about Godwin.

Re:Bah! (2, Insightful)

Vintermann (400722) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051376)

I would argue that Godwin applies perfectly here. That it has been allowed to become a "meme" just means a significant part of the political spectrum have commited Godwin on themselves - and in the usual Godwin way, made fools of themselves.

Godwin's Law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30051380)

There is nothing wrong with breaking the idiotic Godwin's Law.

I quote:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/muslims-feel-like-jews-of-europe-859978.html

Actually I don't quote, I just paste the text in the URL. People draw comparisons with nazism and Hitler and the "final solution" pretty much every day. Invoking Hitler is OK.

Re:Bah! (1)

grazzy (56382) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051542)

From an american standpoint that is a wonderful way of WINNING in the long term. What do you think will happen when the middle east runs out and your local resources are intact?

Yeah, thats what I fear. As a peace-loving european hippy.

Re:Bah! (2, Insightful)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051108)

Isn't it better that we start exploiting our own oil reserves when the prices reach astronomically high levels?

Re:Bah! (3, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051204)

By the time that happens we won't have any money left to exploit them with and it will be the Saudi's pumping oil out of the Midwest.....

Yay, a war we can win! (1)

TiggertheMad (556308) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051522)

By the time that happens we won't have any money left to exploit them with and it will be the Saudi's pumping oil out of the Midwest.....

That's actually a good thing. The Midwest is closer than Iraq, so it will be easy to invade. The locals might even welcome us as liberators!

You're right! (1)

C10H14N2 (640033) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051298)

If you know a famine is coming, clearly the first thing you should do is slaughter your own herds, plow through your fields with salt and drain your wells. Why wait or, you know, stock up? Krazy talk.

Re:Bah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30051382)

10,000 unused domestic and offshore drilling permits exist. That's 10,000 potential wells that the energy industry has permission to "exploit" but chooses not to. Don't blame it all on "enviro-nazis".

Re:Bah! (2, Interesting)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051468)

I'm all for drilling for domestic oil. The problem is, if we drilled every damned energy positive, profitable will in the continental US and it's territorial waters, it probably wouldn't hold back peak oil a year (figures on www.theoildrum.com)

Granted, a year is a lot, particularly if your alternative during that year is "starvation."

But as usual, the liberal/conservative conflict is just bugs in a jar being shaken so they'll fight. Oil doesn't care. Physics doesn't care. Argue all you want, but the day it takes a barrel's worth of energy to get a barrel out of the ground (the problem we *really* need to watch, not peak oil, per se), it will start to become a remarkably unpleasant day.

On the plus side! (5, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#30050862)

We might manage to find some more oil if we all stick our heads far enough into the sand, that is basically where it lives...

Re:On the plus side! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30051174)

This is not a troll. Oil sands [wikipedia.org] are a viable source of oil (at current prices).

wind (0, Offtopic)

h.ross.perot (1050420) | more than 4 years ago | (#30050864)

The answer my friends is blowing in the wind

Re:wind (0, Troll)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 4 years ago | (#30050976)

I'm guessing their answer is to have the IEA control the worlds oil supply and distribute it to country's as they see fit, or some form of global governance, taxes, etc...

It's the only way to stop this crisis that only exists in our heads. I'm sick of these international agencies making ridiculous statements about how we're all going to die because of their computer models that make terribly flawed assumptions. Then their answer is to give them power and money.

If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#30050910)

Reality A: No withheld data. Data is disseminated with some initial shock that by 20xx we will have oil shortages. People get a chance to plan accordingly. Private business gets a chance to cash in on better alternatives and more efficient products marketed to the consumer. California starts to look a little less crazy. Gasoline and fuel slowly becomes more expensive over the years as production slows. People adjust.

Reality B: It's 20xx, suddenly there's no oil. Mass panic. People flip out. People die. Fuel shortages lead to water/food/heating shortages lead to war. Private industry doesn't have a chance to adjust. People aren't prepared to buy a new vehicle on the spot. Californians ride the nearest comet to Heaven's Gate. Crime increases, lawlessness arises, civilization breaks down, I'm forced into a Thunderdome with Cowboy Neal for my right to live.

If the IEA is capable of any logic at all, they are not cooking the books or withholding data. What's the motive of retaining data or fixing charts?

Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic (4, Insightful)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | more than 4 years ago | (#30050956)

Reality C: No withheld data. Data is disseminated with some initial shock that by 20xx we will have oil shortages. People get into panic buying mode. Dogs and cats living together... Come 20XX, new supplies are found, and there are no shortages. People who bought oil future loose their shirts.

Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30051060)

People who bought oil future loose their shirts.

Why? Did they get too hot?

Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic (3, Insightful)

crmarvin42 (652893) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051488)

Reality D: No withheld data. IEA not lying, but the whistleblower is simply a dissenter who was unable to convince the others as to his fuzzy math vs. everyone else's fuzzy math or he is a liar. Press automatically believes the worst, gives free advertising to the whistleblower. Whistleblower writes book, makes lots of money, and possibly receives the Nobel Prize for going to a book signing. Oil prices jump all over the place, everyone panics and the global recession kicks back into high gear for another couple of years.

Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic (1)

skgrey (1412883) | more than 4 years ago | (#30050982)

From the looks of Reality B, it would be to maintain the current state of business and finance so they can enjoy their lives, rather than causing the panic, wars, and breakdown of civilization any sooner than they have to.

Maybe they think they have their thumb stuck in the dam, holding back a huge wave, and are trying to live as well as possible until the inevitable happens? It's not like they aren't going to be blamed a bit if it does..

Of course they'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30050996)

Sudden known changes in prices are much better for oil futures traders.

Particularly if few other traders know they are comming.

Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic (3, Insightful)

jnaujok (804613) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051014)

You forgot Reality C: There's over 3.2 Trillion barrels of known reserves around the world (1.5T of which are in the United States, 1T of which is in the Green River Oil Shales -- all of which is currently unaccessable only because we say it is [by government mandate]). Although some of this oil is more difficult to mine than it is in the middle east, where you can just about stick a pole in the ground and get oil bubbling up, as the price of oil increases, more of these reserves will be made available. As the price rises, some applications will become more cost effective to switch to other sources for power/raw materials/lubrication.

As each one of these applications turns away from oil, the price of oil will temporarily drop or stabilize. Eventually we'll either be 100% off oil, or at a level where it's sustainable for 1000's of years.

Oh wait, that's free market economics, and I forgot that our president has announced that "that doesn't work any more."

So, mandates, high taxes, and bans on exploration and new extraction will be the norm, the price of oil will skyrocket, people will be unable to adjust and will panic/starve/die. So we have scenario B, enforced by our "leaders" rather than a real crisis...

Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051186)

So, mandates, high taxes, and bans on exploration and new extraction will be the norm

Which is stupid. I understand the "it's ugly" and "it ruins the environment" concerns, and perhaps those should be addressed... but to decide, as a politician, that (1) the free market giving incentive to companies to innovate/invent/investigate/[insert cool word that starts with i here] and (2) that various shales are inaccessible (and never WILL be accessible) and then force, through the things you mentioned, companies NOT to investigate and try to do it with their own money ...

Well, at least, American companies. Who knows what non-American/non-European companies or governments will do.

Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic (5, Informative)

orzetto (545509) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051292)

You are thinking only in economic terms. At some point there is an absolute economic limit when you are using as much energy to extract and process the oil as the energy you actually get out of it.

So, there are reserves that are "unattainable" because it is not energetically sane to extract, and they will never be economically feasible no matter the price.

Keep in mind that already now extracting only 50% of the oil of a reservoir is not considered that bad (and that's secondary recovery already, when you flush with water to get more oil out).

Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic (1)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051436)

>>You are thinking only in economic terms. At some point there is an absolute economic limit when you are using as much energy to extract and process the oil as the energy you actually get out of it.

Fortunately oil shale and oil sands are relatively easy to get, energetically speaking. It's more expensive than pumping crude, but when gas prices go up, it becomes economically feasible. The actual issue is the amount of water consumed by the extraction process, not the amount of oil consumed.

There's plenty of oil out their, as the GP says. If we do reach an oil crisis in our lifetime, it's only because our idiot government caused it.

Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic (5, Interesting)

Vintermann (400722) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051446)

> So, there are reserves that are "unattainable" because it is not energetically sane to extract, and they will never be economically feasible no matter the price.

As one witty peak oiler explained it: If I want an apple, I may pay a dollar for it. If I really want and apple, I might pay a thousand dollars for it. But no matter how much I like apples, there's one price I will never pay for one, and that is twoapples.

Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30051364)

"Oh wait, that's free market economics, and I forgot that our president has announced that "that doesn't work any more.""

Except it's not the government, it's speculators, next deferment to an abstraction does not mean that somehow magically oil producers would expand just because you believe in free market economics, big oil has a track record of scotching energy alternatives and in the REAL free market (the real world), not your fantasy land, speculators and other interested parties come in.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-ed-markey/oil-speculators-cost-cons_b_120713.html [huffingtonpost.com]

Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic (5, Informative)

cheesybagel (670288) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051404)

Oil shale is not petroleum. It can be processed into fuel, but so can coal and natural gas. Shale is not processed more because it is expensive and environmentally harmful to to convert. Even tar sands are cheaper.

Here is what you probably don't know: Ronald Reagan stopped funding research on coal to liquids and extraction from oil shale by abolishing the Synthetic Liquid Fuels Program in the 80s.

Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic (2, Insightful)

dtolman (688781) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051460)

Don't get too excited by the Green River shale solving all our problems - that stuff has to be stripped mined out, and then processed with water... a lot of water in drought prone areas... so your # barrels per day from the deposit is never going to be high enough to meet domestic needs.

Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051534)

Why would anyone prefer not knowing about the lack of easily-accessible reserves? Something known to be limited will fetch a higher price on the market, which will bring more profit to the supplier, and reduce usage, which would satisfy those who call for reduced usage. Who wins when the lack of easily-accessible reserves is kept secret?

Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051020)

Reality C: It's 20xx, suddenly there's a -shortage- of oil. Similar to when a refinery gets shut down in Texas, or up here in Canada. Prices go up. People pay it. A handful of people get much richer. People decide its too expensive to drive full Gasoline. Hybrid sales go up. Other people get richer. Business holds until oil is out, which hopefully will have another energy alternative by then. The rich people have secured a major fortune for them and their family, and the world continues.

Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic (4, Insightful)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051024)

Reality B: It's 20xx, suddenly there's no oil. Mass panic. People flip out. People die. Fuel shortages lead to water/food/heating shortages lead to war. Private industry doesn't have a chance to adjust. People aren't prepared to buy a new vehicle on the spot. Californians ride the nearest comet to Heaven's Gate. Crime increases, lawlessness arises, civilization breaks down, I'm forced into a Thunderdome with Cowboy Neal for my right to live.

The only way Reality B can happen is if government artificially lower the price of oil through price caps or subsidies.

Oil producers have no motivation to lie about oil reserves. They need the price to rise as the supply falls so that they maximize their profits. This will inevitably lead to your Reality A, a slow increase in price as supply falls.

Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051226)

... if government artificially lower the price of oil through price caps or subsidies.

Well, we all know the going political trend today is to have the government have as little to do with the supply/demand markets. :)

Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic (2, Informative)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051234)

...if government artificially lower the price of oil through price caps or subsidies.

...or through coups or wars in oil producing countries.

Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic (1)

amorsen (7485) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051328)

Oil producers have no motivation to lie about oil reserves. They need the price to rise as the supply falls so that they maximize their profits. This will inevitably lead to your Reality A, a slow increase in price as supply falls.

This is not entirely true. In an entirely informed and rational market the switch away from oil will happen before the really high prices arrive, simply because investors can see that their investments in different energy sources will be profitable, and so they can make them earlier. On the other hand, as long as it is widely believed that oil is plentiful and will stay cheap, investments in different energy sources will be delayed. It is therefore clear that there is some incentive to keep the market uninformed and irrational. Notice the focus on energy conservation in the 70's after the oil crises, a focus which went away in the 80's as OPEC managed to keep prices steady.

Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30051346)

Of course they have motivation to lie about oil reserves. If you're in OPEC, your quota is based upon how many reserves you have. More reserves, more oil money for your country. Who knows what is accurate but there is great incentive to inflate the numbers.

Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic (5, Insightful)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051356)

Oil producers have no motivation to lie about oil reserves.

Oil producers have ample motivation to lie about oil reserves. Who has more geopolitical and economic clout:
a) A country with 50 billion barrels in proven reserves, who publicly state they have 50 billion barrels in proven reserves, or
b) A country with 50 billion barrels in proven reserves, who publicly state they have 125 billion barrels in proven reserves?

Who is better able to attract foreign investment in port facilities or refineries? Who has more influence over the large oil-consuming nations?

Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051454)

Oil producers have no motivation to lie about oil reserves. They need the price to rise as the supply falls so that they maximize their profits. This will inevitably lead to your Reality A, a slow increase in price as supply falls.

Yes, the need the price to rise (as it will naturally when the amount produced decreases, as has been happening already). But they need the price of oil to not rise so rapidly or for the supply to appear so ephemeral that everyone goes "oh shit!" and does everything possible to switch off of oil.

So the ideal situation for the oil producers is for the current supply of oil to appear strained, so prices increase, but for the long-term supply of oil to appear solid, so nobody panics and moves off of oil. To the extent that this doesn't match reality, there's your motivation to lie. The price of oil is largely determined by the futures market which tries to take into account the future supply, so if it was commonly known that oil was going to run out much sooner than expected, the price of oil today could shoot up past the point of pain.

Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic (5, Insightful)

orzetto (545509) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051524)

You must be new here to OPEC. Let me be your guide.

OPEC exists to maximise the profits of its member countries. To avoid countries from competing against each other and thus lowering the price, there are production quotas.

Quotas are determined for each country based on its reserves.

Reserves are, however, only a rough estimation, because no one can go kilometres underground and survey the oil fields. They only have a few holes, pressure vs. flow data, composition and little more.

As a result, a geologist from Whatsamatterstan is asked from his minister: how much oil reserves do we have? If you say X, we make Y. If you say 2*X, we make 2*Y, and I will be happier. If you say X/2, I will hire another geologist.

So, as a result, reserve estimates within OPEC have a strong incentive to be exaggerated. In order to maximise profits, a country has to put a straight face until oil is really not flowing any more: if they let out the news that they cheated about reserves, they cannot sell oil at the same rate any more, and (not sure about OPEC by-laws) may face fines. So they will always deny any exaggeration in estimates until the bitter end.

Saudi Arabia, in particular, has an enormous incentive to lie about their cheap oil: they have a leadership position in OPEC because they have the largest reservoirs and the cheapest oil (used to be $2/barrel at production), which means they can keep everybody else who may disobey them in line by flooding the market, thereby sinking price, thereby hitting their profits. If they were to hit peak oil, that country would suddenly be powerless, useless to the US as a strategic ally, and will lose its position of prominence (most likely) to Iran, which you may guess will start a long domino effect.

Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051556)

OK, I think I figured it out:

Reality C: The oil extraction companies haven't lied about available reserves; this whistleblower is merely trying to pump up the price on false rumors [wikipedia.org] that there is less oil than thought/claimed.

Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051026)

If the IEA is capable of any logic at all, they are not cooking the books or withholding data. What's the motive of retaining data or fixing charts?

Since TFA doesn't really tell us when the whistleblower is allegeding the IEA started fudging the numbers, we can't really say what the motive is.

Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051072)

Dude, did you pay any attention to the investment banking bubble? Everybody is going to cash in the next decade's quarterly bonuses and when the bubble burst they'll have to be bailed out because they're "too big to fail". The IEA is going to be influenced by everyone around them, it's not going to be "haha let's have fun and ruin the world" but a tons and tons of posturing saying "no, we're fiiiiiiiine... don't look behind that curtain".

Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051074)

We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.

- Maurice Strong [wikipedia.org]

Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30051154)

From the "We had to destroy the village in order to save it" department.

Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic (1)

Zarf_is_with_you (1382411) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051098)


I agree with what you say Eldavojohn.

I think the other thing that will result with Reality B, Despite a World Ruled by Overlords.

Is a Drastic reduction in population that will likely happen, those that can not keep warm in the winter will freeze, and a Society Gone to Hell will take care of the rest.

Those that know it is coming can plan for it and Have the Juice will prevail and live out lives in castles for a few more generations before all the resources are gone.

--
I can deal with running out of oil in 2022 cuz were done for in 2012 anyway.

Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051212)

When the price of oil sky rockets because everyone thinks we're running out and then every person in the US that was so hell bent on fighting public transportation then shits a brick because it costs twice as much to get to work then there will be panic and rioting.

Instead, you keep it quiet as people are working on alternatives. People may not convert soon enough but they'll just expect a government handout, like with digital TV, to buy a new car and will likely get it.

Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051370)

then every person in the US that was so hell bent on fighting public transportation then shits a brick because it costs twice as much to get to work then there will be panic and rioting.

Nobody is "hell bent" on fighting public transport ion. People are hell bent on fighting attempts to force the rest of us to use public transportion, i.e: by artificially raising the cost of keeping an automobile, taxing those who don't use mass transit to make it more affordable for those that do, etc, etc.

I have no problem with mass transit. I do have a problem when my taxes are raised to fund a mass transit system that I'll never use. I reside in Upstate New York and saw my state government bail out the MTA (New York City's mass transit authority) even though at least half of this state doesn't reside in the NYC metro area. God forbid they raise fares to a price point where the strap-hangers would actually be paying for the service they receive.....

Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic (2, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051246)

Reality A: No withheld data. Data is disseminated with some initial shock that by 20xx we will have oil shortages. People get a chance to plan accordingly. Private business gets a chance to cash in on better alternatives and more efficient products marketed to the consumer. California starts to look a little less crazy. Gasoline and fuel slowly becomes more expensive over the years as production slows. People adjust.

Um, California has been looking a lot less crazy ever since gas hit $5.00/gal, even if it since dropped down to half that but still more than twice the cost it was in 2000. The government is funding alternative energy development and alternative energy is being developed and deployed. Fuel/energy efficiency has become a major selling point for a wide variety of consumer products, especially vehicles but also refrigerators, A/C units, even basic home construction in the form of extra insulation paying for itself.

Everyone knows the long term price of gas is only going to go up, up, up. I'm not sure exactly how much more planning you think people could do or would do. Is some hard date 20 years in the future going to make people more proactive today, if the simple cost of fuel and electricity isn't already doing it?

Reality B: It's 20xx, suddenly there's no oil. Mass panic.

I can't imagine a reality where the IEA "downplaying" peak oil today translates into an imminent oil shortage being completely unknown and unanticipated up to the very moment it happens "xx" years in the future. Over time, the simple realities of rising fuel costs will make it obvious that the oil party is going to end soon. If the IEA is still trying to downplay the risk, then they'll necessarily have to change their story.

Downplaying the danger to prevent a panic today is a strategy for today. The logic is probably based around not wanting to cause panic buying of gas, which would reduce the supply and increase the cost of fuel, which would further increase the costs of practically everything in our hobbling economy, which is the opposite of what we need.

I still think it's a bad move... Hiding data like this in general is a bad idea because when the truth is leaked it just further erodes any sort of trust in anything the government does say. When they finally announce that peak oil is really here and we all need to do something right now, everyone will just be saying "yeah right, what's their agenda this time?"

Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic (4, Insightful)

Vintermann (400722) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051410)

We will not "suddenly" run out of oil. What will happen, is that prices will become high, and stay high - even in the face of things which would previously send them into the cellar, such as, I don't know, a global recession.

Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic (5, Insightful)

cfulmer (3166) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051420)

Both your setups (and, from what I've seen, everybody else's) miss a fundamental fact: There's no on/off oil spigot. It's a gradual process. If there really isn't much oil left, then oil will slowly become more and more expensive as the remaining oil becomes harder and harder to extract. We will never truly run out of it -- it will just get so expensive that it will be used for only a few things. Along the way, as the price goes up, alternatives will develop. People will switch to more fuel-efficient cars, perhaps plug-in hybrids, substituting nuclear and hydro energy for oil energy. Similar innovations will happen through every place that oil is used today. We have nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, why not nuclear-powered super cargo ships? You will see a slew of new battery technologies as companies realize that there's a lot of money to be made in replacing oil. In fact, the more expensive oil gets, the more alternatives become viable. The only real shortage would happen if some government put a price cap on oil or gasoline, perhaps saying "You cannot sell gas for more than $5 a gallon" at a time when market forces would set the price at $10. In that case, there would be shortages. Otherwise, there would just be a bunch of people refraining from buying oil because the prices are too high.

Re:If True, Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30051428)

Well Heavens Gate is in South America, right?
Personally I'd rather go to Hell's Gate; Japanese women are, well lovely.

A Little Less Crazy? Right. (1)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051482)

Reality A: No withheld data. Data is disseminated with some initial shock that by 20xx we will have oil shortages. People get a chance to plan accordingly. Private business gets a chance to cash in on better alternatives and more efficient products marketed to the consumer. California starts to look a little less crazy..."

Er, what? A "little less crazy"?!? Fat chance in hell there. Sorry if I don't go jumping on any ideas that CA has cooked up. Their financial mess is second only to the Federal Government...Yeah, speaking of Fascinatingly Bizarre Logic, with the bailout clusterfuck, an oil shortage will be damn near the least of my worries for the next couple of generations...

Besides, we're talking about oil here, which the very subject bleeds of greed and corruption, and usually has jack shit to do with tree hugging hippies. The end will likely be much like the beginning with the insanely rich floating away on a Platinum-lined parachute.

And if we knew how to "plan accordingly", we probably wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.

Dont believe it. (1)

geeper (883542) | more than 4 years ago | (#30050950)

Peak oil could reap the oil companies BILLIONS in profits. Don't you think that if any of this were true/reliable, they'd be shouting from the highest peaks?

Re:Dont believe it. (4, Informative)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | more than 4 years ago | (#30050986)

I doubt it. raise the price too high and even addicts will find another drug....

Certainly the Saudi's will get much richer, but 'Big Oil' business is mostly a middleman these days. They make a good profit, but the vast bulk of the cost is for the crude from producers.

Re:Dont believe it. (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051062)

This is a perfect example of a situation that capitalism works. A million greedy investors are going to be much better at finding out information than a single government agency is at hiding it. If nothing else, I highly doubt that every investor in the world takes their reports at face value (if they do, I should become an investor because the current ones are freakin retarded).

Re:Dont believe it. (1)

Vintermann (400722) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051544)

> I should become an investor because the current ones are freakin retarded

You might certainly want to consider that, because it wouldn't be the first time investors as a group were marching off the cliffs...and there ARE profits to be had. Just remember Keynes' words if you are going to bet against the oil price: The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.

Maybe better to follow the crowd anyway, and get out just in time, before everyone else, right?

There's no good reason for them to do that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30050962)

it has been deliberately underplaying a looming shortage for fear of triggering panic buying.

If there is an upcoming shortage, then we WANT to trigger panic buying. That's the way it works. If the supply decreases with no change in demand, the price goes up. If we're about to run out of oil, prices NEED to start increasing, so that the "free market" will force people into the other solutions, like solar, natural gas, and wind, which suddenly aren't so comparatively expensive.

peak oil clarification (3, Informative)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 4 years ago | (#30050964)

As a point of clarification, the issue is NOT when we will run out of oil. There's enough oil left in the subsurface to last a long time. The issue is how fast we can get it out of the ground. When an economical oil deposit is first discovered, there is a substantial amount of pressure on the oil (think spindletop [wikipedia.org] ) and it comes up to the surface of it's own accord. As the oil from the deposit is produced, the pressure drops and the oil ceases eventually coming up by itself all together. After that, you can still get it out of the ground, but you have to pump it and you never get back to the same flow rate.

World population is continually increasing, China and India are rapidly industrializing so demand for oil is going up and up, but the flow rate isn't. This is why we had $147/barrel oil a few years ago, not speculators. It's all supply and demand, but in this case the supply is limited. No amount oil shale or tar sands or deepwater deposits will do us much good because we can't achieve the same flow rate with these deposits as the traditional ones.

Re:peak oil clarification (2, Insightful)

TheCodeFoundry (246594) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051022)

World population is continually increasing, China and India are rapidly industrializing so demand for oil is going up and up, but the flow rate isn't. This is why we had $147/barrel oil a few years ago, not speculators. It's all supply and demand, but in this case the supply is limited.

If it is simply supply and demand, why are we now down to ~$50/barrel and yet demand hasn't decreased and supply hasn't increased? The price of oil is hardly an indicator of what you are suggesting.

Re:peak oil clarification (1)

amorsen (7485) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051372)

Demand has definitely decreased. Did you happen to notice the financial crisis perhaps? People save where they can.

Re:peak oil clarification (1)

johnny cashed (590023) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051048)

It isn't about how fast we can get it out of the ground, it is how much energy is expended on extracting the oil. As the amount of energy spent extracting the oil goes up, the viability of oil as an energy source goes down.

Diminishing returns and all that.

Re:peak oil clarification (1)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051520)

Bingo.

When people talk about oil being "half gone" what they are really saying is that the stuff with high energy-ROI is "all gone" while the stuff that's a bitch to find/drill/refine is left over. When you can extract 1 barrel of oil at a cost of 0.1 barrels energy input, it's easy to feed an energy-hungry global economy. When you extract 1 barrel of oil at a cost of 0.8 barrels energy input, you start to see crazy price spikes, shortages, and major economic shocks.

Re:peak oil clarification (4, Interesting)

jfengel (409917) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051122)

This is why we had $147/barrel oil a few years ago, not speculators.

If the world population were the only factor, oil would still be at $147/bbl, because the world population hasn't gone down.

I suspect that there was rampant speculation going on, and that a great many speculators lost their shirts when the bubble they'd created burst. But I don't know who the winners and losers were.

If you "smooth out" the spike, the price of oil is still going up pretty fast [wtrg.com] since its trough in the late 90s, even if not quite as fast as the speculation-fueled spike. That would suggest that you're correct: we are looking at a price rise, possibly just based on the supply and demand, and the current dip is just the spike evening itself out.

If that's the case, we'd expect to see oil continue a gradual rise of roughly 5% per year over inflation. But the spikes make it tricky to observe that with anything less than a five-year window.

Re:peak oil clarification (1)

Knara (9377) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051528)

I suspect that there was rampant speculation going on, and that a great many speculators lost their shirts when the bubble they'd created burst. But I don't know who the winners and losers were.

You don't even have to suspect, it's pretty well known at this point that speculation was rampant due to the economy starting to slide and the profits in funds starting to decrease. Many a quote from a COMEX trader at the time mentioned that there were a lot of new faces in the pits, bidding up oil futures to ridiculous levels. Those folks weren't looking to take delivery, they were looking to sell the futures to the companies that would take delivery once the contracts came due.

The Saudi Oil Minister at the time said in a public statement that $75-80USD was their target price range for a barrel of oil, which suggests to me that the the natural price per bbl is somewhere around $50 (which is slightly above where it settled after the bottom felt out the oil futures market a year or two back).

Re:peak oil clarification (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30051166)

It's all supply and demand

Bwahahahahaha! It must be nice living in cuckooland. Give my regards to the faeries!

Re:peak oil clarification (4, Insightful)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051264)

It's all supply and demand

It's really not. OPEC deliberately (and publicly) slows production to keep prices high. They've gotten used to the profits that $70+/bbl oil brings. We're never going back to pre-Katrina oil prices. In the long run, though, this is good - it merely ensures the rise of much more fuel efficient vehicles.

Re:peak oil clarification (1)

d34dluk3 (1659991) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051512)

It's all supply and demand

It's really not.

This statement just shows that you don't understand supply and demand. The nature of supply is that sellers produce the amount that maximizes their profit. For Middle Eastern countries, this means producing at less than full capacity.

Re:peak oil clarification (1)

TrippTDF (513419) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051416)

This is why we had $147/barrel oil a few years ago, not speculators.

During that boom, I never once heard of anyone going without a delivery of oil. One would assume that if there was a real shortage of product, someone would have gone hungry.

Re:peak oil clarification (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30051496)

Average barrel of oil passes through 27 hands before it reaches the consumer, and many of those hands serve no actual purpose other than making a buck on oil. Do you think any of those 27 don't contribute to the price of oil?

Not a good argument (4, Insightful)

The_Wilschon (782534) | more than 4 years ago | (#30050992)

an analogy with the (marginalized, demonized) economists who warned of a coming economic collapse in 2007.

Great. This argument boils down to "Someone who we were told was wrong turned out to be right. Therefore, this other person who we are told is wrong (and by extension everyone who we are told is wrong) must also be right." I have no idea whether or not these whistleblowers are correct or not, but this "argument" by analogy is worse than useless, because it encourages fuzzy thinking.

Re:Not a good argument (2, Informative)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051128)

an analogy with the (marginalized, demonized) economists who warned of a coming economic collapse in 2007.

Great. This argument boils down to "Someone who we were told was wrong turned out to be right. Therefore, this other person who we are told is wrong (and by extension everyone who we are told is wrong) must also be right." I have no idea whether or not these whistleblowers are correct or not, but this "argument" by analogy is worse than useless, because it encourages fuzzy thinking.

Except I can't remember any economists who were demonized for pointing out problems with the economy in 2007. I can remember lots of news articles about economists talking about how bad things were.

Re:Not a good argument (1)

Knara (9377) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051552)

Well, there were people who dismissed naysayers on "pop" finance outlets like CNBC, and there were people who (rightly) said that the housing market was unsustainable. However, those are not the same people who are talking about peak oil, AFAIK, so there's zero valid comparison to be made between the two groups.

Re:Not a good argument (1)

Beriaru (954082) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051162)

Maybe the argument is: "Someone who we were told was nuts turned out to be right. Therefore, this other person who we are told is nuts maybe also is right."
And taking in account the people who says they are nuts is the same people who have more to lose if it's true...

Give it a rest, will you? (4, Insightful)

bartyboy (99076) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051000)

These popular conspiracy theories about group X holding back product/information Y are all debunked by a single thought: IF these people are truly smart enough to rule the world (or an aspect of it), they know better than to try to control every single individual in it.

What does this mean? That they are smart enough to follow free markets. They are smart enough to know that they can't predict the future of the stock market, even if they can control an aspect of it. This assumes that these groups do have a level of involvement high enough to control the government, financial and religious institutions WITHOUT being exposed. You really think that a large group of people is capable of holding a secret so large for so long? A president gets a blowjob from an intern and the whole world hears about it. I doubt an army of engineers, scientists and politicians would be quiet about what really goes on in Area 51, killing people with vaccines, peak oil conspiracies or whatever bullshit is popular that day.

So give your conspiracy theories a rest and please report some real news.

Probably overblown (3, Insightful)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051076)

Whistle Blowers have agendas too, sometimes. But it's a moot point, because the proper response is the same either way: fast track nuclear plants. There is no other reasonable solution to the inevitable energy problem. We will switch to nuclear at some point or our civilization will collapse.

DJIA News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30051104)

Oil prices sore today putting transportation at a standstill. Analysts claim that insiders at the IEA admitted to "fudging the numbers" when it came to oil reserves; these bold whistle-blowers are causing the exact market panic that the IEA was trying to avoid in the first place.

Wall Street is getting ready for $10/gallon and bailout 2.0

Aren't "known reserves" all fucked up? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30051146)

I'm pretty sure OPEC allocates allowed production levels by each country's "known reserves", giving the rulers of those countries all kinds of incentive to exaggerate their reserves.

The medieval Saudi despots and thugs like Hugo Chavez want to grab all the money they can while THEY'RE alive.

Evil capitalists create a reverse debeers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30051152)

That would create an artificial abundance of oil, artificially depressing prices for no other reason to hide the terrible secret of PEAK OIL.

Never let it be said that paranoid loons are confined to the right. The religious left has just as many.

And I can find an editorial in The Guardian that argues Stalinism is better than capitalism. So an editorial in the Guardian aint worth much.

Peak oil is not important, peak energy is (2, Interesting)

davidwr (791652) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051168)

More specifically, speak cheap and easy energy is important.

Right now we have easy access to oil, coal, natural gas, and in some places, hydro- and other power sources.

On the horizon are not-so-cheap but getting-cheaper-and-easier-every-decade sources such as new drilling technologies to recover fossil fuels that were previously infeasible to recover, solar power, wind power, wave power, and other sources.

As long as energy prices rise slowly enough so there isn't a panic, yet fast enough to spur investment in higher-than-current-oil-price-per-gigajoule fuel sources, we should be fine.

Yes, there is a finite supply of non-renewable energy. However, if you are willing to pay the equivalent of $150/barrel for that energy, it's a lot less finite than if you are only willing to pay $75. When it comes to most forms of renewable energy including wind, wave, and solar, there may be a limit on the wattage and transport of that energy, but there is virtually no limit on the number of years we can use it.

Why Peak Oilers are utterly uninteresting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30051170)

Why don't I listen to Peak Oilers or read their articles?

Because everything they say is either fantastically basic and self-explanatory, based on armchair assessments of the situation, or purely based on speculation.

Of sayings that fall in the first category, we find "The world will run out of oil" - "some time in the next 10/20/30/60 years we will reach a plateau in the amount of hydrocarbons produced" - "we cannot extract hydrocarbons infinitely" - "people think they can substitute gas, but do we have infinite gas? No we don't" - all of these things I was aware of at the age of 10. There is nothing interesting in it whatsoever, for values of 'interesting' that also include 'new'.

Of sayings in the second category, we find "the world will descend into chaos" - "it will be the war to end all wars" - etc. This is pure speculation. And the reason this is speculation is enshrined in the third point I would like to make:

Nobody knows what will happen. Once we have reached the "peak", how long will it take to actually "run out"? In the meantime, how high will the prices go, and how much will supply be extended as a result of the fall in demand resulting from increasing prices? How will people adapt to a situation where there is limited and rationed hydrocarbons? How will society be reshaped? Will Joe Bloggs pull out a gun and start shooting as soon as he is told? Or will he just get on the bus, along with his children who will never see personal vehicles like today? What will be the cost in living standard of this? How much of the cost can be balanced by what spending on research in renewable energy, what theoretical limits does renewable energy has, and most importantly, in the time to (peak oil plus the duration of the decline), how far can technology come? Furthermore, what attention should we devote to Peak Oil as a threat, as opposed to other possible threats, including global warming, Western aging, migration, raw materials, the state of the global economy over the next year?

If Peak Oilers actually had anything interesting what-so-ever to say on these things, I might actually start listening to them. Because I read with great interest articles on Slashdot about fission and fusion, about energy efficiency, solar cells, etc. So do pretty much everyone with an above average interest in the world, I would say. But very few of them actually bother to buy the books of Peak Oilers or read their articles. This is simply because all Peak Oilers say is "We will reach a point called a 'peak' and it's game over from there and it is the death of everything you know, hurr durr durr [beard scratching, knowing-and-condescending-smirk]". No numbers, no reliable forecasts, no credible and very well-researched and plausible answers to any of the previous questions. Just armchair philosophy and speculation. If Peak Oiler is a job that you can survive on with a good income, then hell - I WANT THAT JOB MORE THAN ANYTHING,

If you're a Peak Oiler who feel a lack of respect, try spending your entire life saying something else than what billions of people already know. Just a hint.

Considering the source (1)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051184)

I have no reason to trust to anonymous sources, so why should I?

Re:Considering the source (0, Troll)

rotide (1015173) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051332)

To add to that, this is a story by kdawson. Most of the stories from said poster usually include conspiracy-esque summaries. kdawson either likes drama or they really want to believe in these highly polarizing stories.

Not saying this story isn't true, but I'm not certain anyone really knows outside of the acronyms in question.

We will always have deep sea exploration.... (1)

teumesmo (1217442) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051252)

Judging by Brazil's exploits, by actually spending, as Brazil does, some 40 dollars per barrel in operational costs(deep sea exploration), I think peak oil might still be 100 years away. Hopefully big oil's addiction to their own criminal profiteering will lead them to cleaner(more profitable by a factor of 100) alternatives, unless they figure they are rich enough already, and decide to take a "moral" stand to us mere mortals.

Re:We will always have deep sea exploration.... (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051444)

Hopefully big oil's addiction to their own criminal profiteering will lead them to cleaner(more profitable by a factor of 100) alternatives, unless they figure they are rich enough already, and decide to take a "moral" stand to us mere mortals.

You mean the "mere mortals" that own shares in "big oil" and thereby receive some benefit from what you deem to be "criminal" profiteering?

Got a 401(k) or other retirement account? Have any mutual funds? If the answer is yes then you are the proud owner of "big oil". Will you be turning yourself into the authorities for your "criminal" profiteering or are you going to take the easy way out and blow your brains out?

PEAK LYING (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30051270)

Lets just examine this for a moment-

whistleblower alleges that profit oriented entities (oil companys) are engaged in a conspiracy to withold data (hiding current and future shortages of oil) in regard to the future trending of oil markets which would have an effect on todays supply and hence price from now until forever, effectively passing on the profit making panic that would ensue right here and right now and never mind the gouging of 2008 where billions were reaped despite not apparent shortages of supply

if anything, 2008 shows the lengths these entities will go to promote and oil panic where there is none and with wall streets full complicity, what you thought financial derivaties were the only dildo we shoved up the ass of the american taxpayer let alone the suckers in international markets

this is about as sound as obamanomics and of course emanates from the green idiots who cannot seem to understand we dont want to freeze in winter, we dont want to starve in general and we dont want to die in the OR while getting our triple bypass and we dont want any of this for our families, friends, country, city, town etc.

what i look forward to is the massive die off of the greenies when they eschew modern life and retreat to the woods barefoot and naked

"Climate Change" is secret code for "Peak Oil" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30051348)

Here's a tinfoil-hat theory for ya: Leaders know Peak Oil is coming, but they don't want everybody to freak out about it, so instead they make a huge push to address another crisis, maybe one that can appear more urgent: Anthropogenic Climate Change. Environmental treaties are already in place, and there's a proven path to change direction on a global scale out of concern for the environment. Not so out of anticipated future economic issues. And oh, what a nice coincidence, things we do to address Climate Change also leave us in better shape for dealing with Peak Oil. How about that!

usgs.gov site down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30051396)

that's funny?

Not worried (5, Interesting)

hatemonger (1671340) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051432)

Maybe I'm the exception, but gas is a very small part of my recurring bills. If gas prices double or triple, maybe I'll skip a new video game or dinner out every month. Whoop-de-do. And the price of shipping goods will increase. So I'll pay $0.79 instead of $0.59 for a potato. I'm just not quaking in my boots. The biggest overlooked fact of peak oil is that it will be a gradual decline as more oil recovery methods become economically feasible. So over the rest of my life, I suspect there will eventually be a cheaper mode of transportation than gas-powered cars. But for now, I'll stick with the convenience of 400 miles/fill-up, gas stations everywhere, and transportation costs (including car payment) below 15% of my income.

With apologies to Andy Warhol (2, Funny)

wcrowe (94389) | more than 4 years ago | (#30051476)

In the future every entity will have an associated conspiracy theory, for 15 minutes.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...