I read this article the other night and I can't stop talking about. Thank you for sharing this important story.
If I can get the necessary permission from you and Dave, I would like to reproduce this fine piece, with of course the usual credits, in World Streets at www.worldstreets.org. As you can imagine, Dave is helping us to understand yet one more reason why we need a massive overhaul of our transportation policies, and it ain’t for sure going to be waiting for the wonders of technology to kick in in time to save us (from ourselves).
You may want to have a quick look at streets to see how all this works in.
Thanks if this works out for you.
With all good wishes,
Eric Britton
Skype ericbritton Tel +331 43265 1323
Peak Oil theory fails in the most fundamental way in that it is not possible to predict future discoveries. Peak oil is the point in time beyond which, every year, we consume more oil than we discover, thus tapping into our reserves until they are gone. Even if we disregard the fact that estimating reserves is more of an art than a science, we can forecast how much oil will be discovered in 2013. Perhaps we will discover little oil in 2011 but much more in 2013. Therefore the smooth downward slope of the peak oil graph is an absurdity.
The important question is not when will peak oil be reached, but when will the price be high enough for hydrocarbons to stop being a viable energy source. I suspect the price threshold will eb reached far earlier than the peak oil threshold.
Excellent and thoughtfull article, thanks!
Jeremy,
You can't use wishes for liquid fuel. If you don't believe Dave Hughes I suggest you take a look at the Oil Megaprojects data at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_megaprojects. If you have information that would be helpful regarding future discoveries, I am certain they would be interested.
Jeremy - two points
1. Oil discovery peaked at the end of the 60s, since then we have found less and less oil every year. The oil discovery and oil production graphs are of course mirrors of each other, since you can only produce what you find.
2. To gain funding from for oil exploration, you must have a very very good geological case for the chance of finding oil. The vast majority of the earth is understood by geologists and there are few spots left where oil may exist.
Good luck convincing a bank to give you tens of millions of dollars to drill a hole where geologists say there is no oil.
Nice article, but I found the use of second person a little odd (or should I say "you" find it odd) for this type of article.
We have a pair of exponential functions, population growth and energy consumption per capita. Most projections of lifetime of fuels whether fossil or nuclear are based on current rates of consumption. Compound for the annual increase of 2% + and we only have a few decades left rather than centuries even of the bigger ones like coal.
As for the validity of peak oil specifically, it has been validated in the US. The difference, going worldwide, is that in the US, once cheaper sources were exhausted, you went offshore. Worldwide, the next step is to tap expensive sources. So I am not so confident that we will run out of exploitable hydrocarbons soon enough to avoid dangerous CO2 levels.
Whichever way we argue it though, rather than rushing full tilt into a massive decline in supply and escalation in cost, we ought to be working hard now on alternatives. What better time to do this than in a worldwide recession, where governments are trying to spend their economies back to health?
Great article and very scary. Bit of a cliche but the current calm of business as usual reminds me of the old story about frog in the slowly heating pot of water. It doesn't do anything until it's too late. That's our society right now. Our children and grandchildren will curse us for this.
The other cliche deals with making the public policy changes necessary to prepare for the collapse in oil - those who can, will not and those who will, cannot. Is anybody listening?
Until the ecofascists cease and desist with their Luddite-like screeching and allow exploration and drilling, the "science is settled" crowd is being intentionally obtuse about the existing supply of oil. If companies aren't allowed to find and extract the oil, "PEAK OIL!1!" is nothing short of an anti-human mantra from ego-stroking faux elites who feel that they're smarter than everybody else.
skh.pcola did you actually read the article?
I don't think the "science is settled" crowd are being obtuse, but I can guarantee that you are. The geologists interviewed may be a tad abstruse, but at least they know what they're talking about.
PS.(They are smarter than you.)
Thank you for the article.... I have been researching peak oil off and on for the past couple of years, and the latest opinion of the IEA was new to me. What I can't understand is why no one seems to be upset by this. An immediate shift of priority is needed worldwide. Just think off all the wasted energy and money being spent on projects that assume everything will remain status quo! I had hoped the recession would shake things up a bit....
Is there a list of upcoming presentations by Dave Huges on this topic,I'm in the Edmonton Area and would be very interested in attending.
The notions of peak oil and runaway climate change are very interesting and I have been reading as much as I can find on both subjects over the past few months. This article helps to bring the peak oil dilemma into focus for the rest of us who seem to carry on as though the status quo can be sustained indefinitely. Apparently, it cannot. I find myself marveling at how surreal the situation has become.
What I have not yet come across is intelligent discussion on how our urban societies might adapt to using far less energy. In Canada, will we freeze in the dark in winter, eating turnips and potatoes? What are the likely scenarios for our population in a radically poorer environment? What are the implications for government revenues and expenditures? Should we continue to encourage people to immigrate to Canada where our per capita energy use is the highest in the world?
Is anyone in politics addressing these issues in more than a "change your light bulb" sort of way?
Enough of the reasons why we have to change our ways, lets have more realism on what we have to do to adapt.
I saw the print edition of this article detailing me yesterday for the first time. There was a notation on the cover of "Alberta's Prophet of Doom". My reaction was what a cheap sensationalist version of what Chris Turner had to say of my analysis of the energy situation - maybe hoping to sell more magazines, but what a disservice to my message. I am not a prophet of doom, rather, I am an objective analyst and observer with more scientific background than any number of pundits out there. I am stating the facts and what must be considered to manage the energy issue going forward. Your sensationalist take is an insult to my message and to my integrity. I understand that you have to sell magazines but please do not do it at the expense of my credibility. I AM NOT A PROPHET OF DOOM!!!!!
Don't worry Dave, your personal integrity came shining through in the article itself. Would love a .pdf of the presentation.
Dave: I join Steve McGibbon in saying that you need not worry about having been called a doomsayer. Most people who will read the story will never see the printed cover with that absurd headline, and the few that do will take it for just another editor's breathless attempt to hype a story — a story that needs no hyping really. Thanks to you for all you are doing to alert people, and thanks to the writer for doing a solid job — much better than the peak oil pieces that have appeared down here in the states, typically making Peak Aware people look like UFO enthusiasts and Cold Fusion believers.
Nice style of article -"one mans discovery"- or should I say "one prophets discovery"? :o)
For those interested to get another take on this I published a -now slightly older piece- in late 2007 just after the 'Credit Crunch' went mainstream in which I attempted to 'Join the dots':
Do a Google on "Peak Oil joining the dots" or copy/paste:
http://www.megatrends2020.com/Peak_Oil__Joining_The_Dots.doc
-I also hint at the likely outcomes including Commodity prices going 'through the roof' (non-discretional ones anyway) and runaway Inflation / Dollar collapse... Are we there yet?
Nick.
Dave and Chris, thank you so much for getting this information out there. I've been switched on to peak oil for quite a few years now. This article only confirmed for me, yet again, that we're in deep trouble. In particular, the description of the two charts that Dave wants people to remember most of all, is jaw-dropping in the message it delivers.
Presently I am putting together notes for teaching a Permaculture Design Certificate course and would like to include your stats to show people why we need to make these "power-down" changes to our way of living. I would also like to include your references along with the stats.
Thanks
Diane Hall
living.permaculture (at) gmail.com
Say goodbye to the forests.
Once the peak hits with a vengeance, more and more people will turn to burning wood to avoid the high cost of oil and natural gas.
What most people do not see is that this unwinding of an incredibly destructive paradigm (the cheap energy/industrial complex) will cause a spiral of worsening effects as everyone demands that current paradigms remain in some form. They will demand cars and electronic goods and cheap food and Internet and cheap clothing, tools, chemicals, etc. And in the mad scramble of a post cheap energy world, the ever amoral politicians will promise anything to keep that paradigm going: Hundreds of nuke plants? You bet! Burn food in the form of biofuels? Yes, sir! Pollute a vast swatch of Canada for tar sands? Are you kidding? Pollute away! Blow the tops off mountains? Drain the seas of fish? Yes and YES!!!!
As the politicians promise to keep the magical consumer dream going, the sheep will increasingly fall for brutal men and women like the BNP and the NeoCons who will find scapegoats who are keeping those consumers from their rightful place in line at WallyWorld. And soon camps will spring up to contain those who dare to challenge the paradigm, its beneficiaries (the corporations), the politicos in the emply of those interests, and the dreaded consumer.
So, by the time all is said and done, I would expect, by the end of the century, a human population of maybe 500 million huddled around the far north, a planet that will be largely destroyed for tens of thousands of years, perhaps millions, and only a few chagrined techno-monkeys among the remainder who might be able to pass on the message, the brutal truth, that technology without integration into the natural cycle of birth and death will lead to some future devastation.
Dave, it's true — most of us reading the story are finding it online and never saw the dumb "prophet of doom" headline. But I don't blame you for being angry about it.
A lot of online forums have been discussing peak oil and what life might be like afterwards. But it's always good to read another expert's insights on what is going on and why it's something to take seriously. Thank you so much for your work and spreading The Talk.
I have been following the peek oil debate for over ten years. For financial security I assumed that it would happen sooner rather than later and thus have not lost a cent in the recent financial crash. I will shortly sell my suburban home and try to strategically buy land for much greater self sufficiency. Close family contracts are farmers so new skills can be learned.
The most encouraging immediate community planning suggestions I found on the internet is a movement in England called transitiontowns.org. A how to manual and examples of initial successes by local communities to agree to address the topic and then decide what they can and must do prepare themselves for the 30 year transition that can not be avoided. As always great challenges can and ultimately must be addressed at the local level.
One of the many things I liked about the film "Road Warrior", was that everyone seemed a bit insane; no one was left unscathed. Road warrior world, here we come!
Dear Sirs:
With respect to the peak oil crisis that is ahead of us, the biggest mistake we made was the destruction of much of our rail infrastructure.
When it comes to energy efficiency and alternative energy use, the railroads are the best means of transportation we will ever have.
A modern railway can achieve 750 (seven hundred fifty) gross ton miles per gallon. This is weight in tons times miles per gallon. Try multiplying the weight in tons, times the miles per gallon, of your vehicles; and you will see how inadequately energy efficient they are, compared to rail transportation.
Railways are totally energy alternative. From the days of steam locomotives to present day, railroads have a proven record of being able to use every form of energy known to mankind, for propulsion.
With respect to the electric economy, the gentleman is not accurate. Railroads can totally electrify themselves. The technology exists to electrify every mile of track (even the track used by the diesel railroads); so the trains can use every source of energy known to mankind. Every source of energy known to mankind can be directly or indirectly converted to electric power to power a train. Thus trains can run totally free of any dependency on oil for energy!
Additionally, because a train can stay in constant contact with its electric power source; it can run thousands of miles non-stop. With this, it is possible to run a train coast to coast (non-stop), WITHOUT burning one drop of oil for energy!
And the fuel to power the generators producing the electricity for the railroads is—what, exactly? Pixie dust? Or, more practically, several hundred nukes? Please do not insult our intelligence by asserting that solar or wind power can do the trick, as neither is scalable to the necessary size to replace hydrocarbons in electricity generation on a continental scale. We are going to find ourselves, fairly soon, on an energy budget largely limited to what the sun gives us day-to-day, just as the human race has been living for all but the last couple centuries of our history. The immediate consequence will be a die-off of perhaps 80% of the human population, as our numbers decrease to what that energy budget can realistically support. Those who comprise the 80% are not likely to lay down quietly and expire. Cortes Island seems a wise choice to me.
Gladstone Gardner
With respect to electric power, this can be generated by; but not limited to: gas, coal, geothermal, hydroelectric, nuclear, biomass, wind, solar, ocean wave motion, oil; and so on sources of energy!
In this comment stream I think "Gladestone Gardener" wins out over "James A. Hallams" (odd names)? You see children, our population has over run the Earth, our mother and caused a plague of suffering for the naturale life on this ever so fragile planet. We are experiencing the most rapid species die off, (our natural brothers and sisters, plants and animals) in geologic history. I hope we have several decades to resolve this overabundance of our selves, but I doubt it.
Mr. Hughes, your anger at the obtuse "prophet of doom" remark strikes home.
But there's a facet of this whole deal that is as fascinating as it is abyssmal: the mainstream human psyche will not "take" the peak oil argument.
The majority of humans will always view dire warnings as "prophesies of doom" instead of what they are, DIRE WARNINGS. A warning is not a prophesy, but try explaining that to lunk-heads. It has always been thus.
The majority of humans will always default toward the "reserves fallacy," continually and stubbornly confusing amount of oil underground with flow rates, and it will always be thus.
The majority of humans will continue to confuse "maxing out" with "running out" and it will always be thus.
The majority of humans, upon seeing a pile of one hundred million pennies, will continue to see One Million Dollars.
It has always been thus.
And "...like fish caught in a treacherous net and birds trapped in a snare, so the
sons of men are ensnared at an evil time when it suddenly falls on them." Ecclesiastes 9:12
Thank you for this quite amazing and well written article. As a student of the peak oil theory for several years now, I feel I've prepared as best I can, but I still know it's not ever going to be enough. It both terrifies and amazes me that almost everyone is expecting 'civilization' to continue on and that somehow, technology will solve our problems.
I read something back in the 70s that has stayed with me ever since: Ivan Ilich wrote a wonderful little tome called, "Energy and Equity"; in it, he states that we never really go faster than bicycle speed; all else is an illusion, the speed of the vehicle making us forget the time spent designing, producing, buying and maintaining the thing; whether it be car, jet plane or space shuttle...
Here's to a slower, more human paced planet. Too bad without oil, we won't be able to feed 80% of us... For more wonderful points of view on this, if a reader is new to the topic, see anything by Richard Heinberg (his wonderful "Power Down" and "The Party's Over" are great places to start, but his tour de force is his "Power Down Protocol" giving us ways to do what must be done. James Howard Kunstler's "The Long Emergency" is good for a curmudgeon's point of view on suburbia, etc; and his "Clusterfuck" blog is alternately hilarious and spot-on... for day by day updates, Life After The Oil Crash.com offers a wealth of information. And everyone should watch Albert Bartlett's lecture on population growth on youtube... I believe it holds the award of being the most watched lecture in history. Oh, and don't miss the now dated but still cogent video, "The End of Suburbia" also available on line.
Good luck everyone, we're going to need it.
Thanks for an interesting article. There's a small error on the final page:
'Put your average healthy Albertan on a treadmill and wire it to a generator, and in an hour the guy could produce about 100 watts of energy. That’s 360,000 joules.'
You mean that if he worked at a power of 100 watts *for* an hour, he would produce 360,000 joules of energy: watts are a rate of energy transfer, 1 watt being 1 joule per second: you need to know how long you've been working and at what rate to know how much energy has been transferred. In an hour, the Albertan has produced 100 watt-hours, not 100 watts: you have confused a rate for an amount.
This is pedantic, but I think it partly evidences one of the difficulties surrounding energy debates: the panoply of units and orders of magnitude deployed. Whilst correct, people cannot relate to these, both through their magnitude, and simply never encountering them in real life. Having seemingly no consensus on how to present this information is at best obfuscatory, at worst baffling. All too often large numbers are used to be sensational (often while hiding their relative smallness), as is partly seen in the demonstration of the amount of energy in a barrel of oil: arresting indeed, providing a gasp for the reader towards the end of the article, but we all know that oil contains a lot of energy and that it's used to power our lifestyles at a rate that we alone could not manage: it's why we don't move our cars with our feet, Flintstones style. Noting the energy density of oil is really of little use without knowing how much energy our lifestyles use, and how much alternative sources (renewables, nuclear...) could economically feasibly provide.
Peak oil and peak gas obviously have to come at some point; no matter what remains to be discovered, the pools aren't infinite. Whether the peaks have happened already or are a few decades off isn't very important. The questions are how we adapt to them and how well we adapt to them.
There will be no single solution. Obviously renewables (wind, photovoltaic solar and solar-powered heat engines) will play a large part. The biggest gains come from using less energy. Unfortunately, there are nastier coping mechanisms.
The real threat is that coal reserves will be brought in as a stopgap and then a long-term crutch. Coal reserves are much larger than hydrocarbon (oil and gas) reserves and there are proven ways to synthesize liquid and gaseous fuels from coal. (Natural gas is "natural" because it isn't carbon monoxide generated from coal as burned by Victorians.) We can delay inevitable changes for many years.
Meanwhile, global warming continues. That's the danger that swamps all others.
Of possible interest to anyone that follows EROI theory/data:
1 - A Peak Oil discussion on Financial Sense website with Matt Simmons and Dr. Robert Hirsch, Dec 2008, audio format:
http://snipurl.com/l33kj [www_financialsense_com]
Financial Sense - Simmons/Hirsch discussion
2 - Dr. Louis Arnoux's pdf book: "Peak Oil, Climate Change and All that Jazz" http://snipurl.com/l34j4 [www_itmdi-energy_com]
You will find both of these information sources quite interesting and informative. The audio discussion is over an hour long, and the pdf book is 3.7M in size.
Dave Hughes is not alone in his conclusions... we should be very concerned by looking at this data.
With respect to the destruction of our rail system,as commented on by Mr. Hellams, we can thank, in part anyway, GM+Firestone+Standard Oil for collaborating to buy up and rip up railways throughout the US in the 1930's. Kind of forced us to buy cars....
WastingtonDC: Hino has sold 500 hybrid 7.5 ton trucks. Volvo is building Class 8 Hybrids, with 25% and higher improvements in the miles per gallon used by these million mile vehicles that can range from 3.5mpg like my 1985 International 9370, 475HP Detroit 8v92, still on the road, last time I talked to the new owner, to 5 or 6 mpg for the best of them, today. Eaton with a consortium have built a fully diesel electric, not hybrid, just straight diesel electric drive heavy lift military, that is also a Plug Out, 200KW generator, to eliminate our immense generator carbon footprint, and the clutter of additional engines, trailers tires, etc. One US company, and several foreign firms with living design departments get it, and are designing working trucks, for working people. Light medium and heavy truck Plug In and Out hybrids will bring US energy independence within a generation, while the flyweight plug in vehicles GM is forced to build, will sell a few millions, with unlimited taxpayer subsidies, but will make a small dent in OPEC terror financier's energy blackmail alliance with the SinoRussian energy blackmailers. A simple NAFTA wide subsidy, with no felt pain to the taxpayers, and decisive incentives to light medium and heavy truck hybrid owners is easy to do, and will end production of fuel only light medium and heavy vehicles, within a generation. Issue a permanent, NAFTA wide, free trade Title, Registration, and License Plate, for $50.00 for any hybrid, new, used, or converted, that increases the vehicles non imported fuel use by 50%, or mileage per gallon, by 20% for heavier vehicles. Exempt all hybrids from entering the hundreds of weight and inspection extortion palaces, at every state's many border crossings. This is an instant $5K to $15K tax, fine, and fee extortion exemption, and will end fuel only vehicle production within a generation. It will pay for conversion of most of the trucks now on the roads, due to simple economics. Having lived over 300 days per year in that 9370 International, 475 Detroit, after my retirements from government and military service, and after retiring from the road, long days and nights in my 2000 Ford Excursion used as a field office and observation post, as a quality manager at high traffic national venues, I can vouch for the necessity of designing working trucks, for 80 million working Americans, who cannot work without them. Not tool boxes, laptops, and cup holders, working hybrid trucks. With, now, 245,000 miles on that diesel Excursion, burning over 14,000 gallons of diesel, I can assure you that the young people who took over after my retirement need light medium and heavy hybrids, to save 25% up to 100% of the imported fuel that destroys their ability to make a living, when gasoline goes above $3.00, and harms them greatly, at lower costs. That's why truck dealer lots are full of repo'ed and abandoned new trucks that get 12 mpg empty, when my Excursion, with the larger 7.3L diesel still gets over 17 mpg, with two tons of tools, chains, and winches in the rear compartment. Nobody builds million mile diesel vehicles better than Detroit, UAW/CAW get the governments off their backs, and 80,000,000 North Americans who must work with a truck will buy a new or converted diesel hybrid, right now.
There are already several excellent documentaries on this subject available on DVD which everyone should watch:
(1) The End of Suburbia: Oil Depletion and the End of the American Dream
(2) A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash
These can both be purchased from Amazon. Excerpts have been posted on YouTube.
(3) Crude: The Incredible Journey of Oil
This is only sold in Australia but can be viewed on Guba:
http://www.guba.com/general/search?query=crude&set=5&x=18&y=4
===
The peak oil documentary "A Crude Awakening" can be viewed (at reduced resolution) on Goggle videos:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-665674869982904386
It is also available at some video rental shops.
Dave Hughes tells a story of massive impending global constraints in oil, gas and coal. Clearly there are some deep-seated psychological mechanisms in us that prevents frightening news of this sort from sinking in. (Climate change denial is another obvious example of a bugaboo that triggers this illogical reaction.) Still, there are enough people who realize that humans also have the capacity to rise to the challenge of preserving its security in the face of such major threats. Most of us don't accept these problems — let alone act on them — until the writing is writ large on the wall. But others are acting already. Despite the apparent gloominess of Dave Hughes' message, he still remains an optimist. This is an extremely important point that I don't think Chris Turner fully appreciates. Now is the time to start taking action to re-engineer modern society's economic template so that living standards can continue to grow while energy consumption drops. "Calgary's own" energy economist Peter Tertzakian, in his new book "The End of Energy Obesity", does just that. The future's promise lies not in finding more supplies of energy, but in altering "demand-side behaviour". We need to be realists to hear Dave Hughes, but we need to be hard-workers if we're going to listen to Tertzakian and pursue his sensible solutions to this energy crisis.
Tertzakian's YouTube video can be seen at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhZ4r6Sw8U
An interesting and intimidating article, thanks for the insight. Is video of 'the talk' available anywhere? If not Dave should consider filming and posting this presentation. The graphs aren't as effective in paragraph form...
One thing that is important is to relate energy consumption with every day actions. One poster above mentioned how difficult it is to get the units of energy right for people. Big numbers or small numbers attached to mixed up units always make it difficult to understand. It is for this reason that I feel the peak oil message is lost and still very academic, left only to those that attune to the subject.
Perhaps what it takes is drastic rationing of gasoline. If gasoline stations were required to shut down for several weeks of the year, the public might have an idea what peak oil really means.
Wha, it's really a great story. Surely make me can't sleep to think about this article. Thank very much for sharing.
Nowhere in the comments on this article did I see even a mention of fusion (excepting COLD fusion which is outside the laws of science so far). We live in a universe that does not have an energy problem because of the relationship of matter to energy. (they are one and the same). We simply MUST develop fusion as the only method of fueling our energy needs that meets our current scale. Old man Bush started down this road, beginning work on a collider with sufficient power to resolve some of the technical problems and a magnetic containment vehicle. Both projects were ended by Clinton with blind foresight. The current regime has said and done nothing I have heard. How ironic it would be that we miss our chance and fall into the scenario that has been discussed here!(CERN is a start but it is too small and a political hydra)
Peak oil and peak gas obviously have to come at some point; no matter what remains to be discovered, the pools aren't infinite. Whether the peaks have happened already or are a few decades off isn't very important. The questions are how we adapt to them and how well we adapt to them.
I have been following the peek oil debate for over ten years. For financial security I assumed that it would happen sooner rather than later and thus have not lost a cent in the recent financial crash. I will shortly sell my suburban home and try to strategically buy land for much greater self sufficiency. Close family contracts are farmers so new skills can be learned.
The most encouraging immediate community planning suggestions I found on the internet is a movement in England called transitiontowns.org. A how to manual and examples of initial successes by local communities to agree to address the topic and then decide what they can and must do prepare themselves for the 30 year transition that can not be avoided. As always great challenges can and ultimately must be addressed at the local level.
Your writing style is marvellous and you have given a good article. I found this article to be very informative
While I like the idea of lessening our oil usage, I also feel like the little changes our North American society will make over the next few decades will unfortunately not offset the massive increases countries like China and other developing countries will use. Just my opinion, the truth will be seen when the time comes.
I am not sure this is the end of the fossil fuel age. It is the cheapest form of energy. An after the whole climate gate i think that people would continue to burn a lot of fossil fuel.
There's new technology being developed to convert shale oil efficiently and cost effectively. That's good news since there seems to be an endless supply of shale oil in North America. Either way, renewable energy is the right answer and it is the future.
yes absolutely right. energy crisis.
for temporary in my country (developing country), everyday we will not have electricity for few hours, due to old systems generator, and no money yet to change with the new one
energy... why always energy.... energy create several wars, energy create several .......
yes.... energy is important but human life more important
Hello,
When we at nice artikel, would be nice if we share good comment :D
Although everyone is crying for greener ways, I hear many well-educated people on both sides say we simply don't know if we are causing global warming, and in fact the planet goes through cycles of cold/hot periods...we didn't cause the Ice Age.
Well i think that the provincial sustainable resources minister came up to congratulate himself for setting aside some new provincial parkland on the edge of the city
I think i'm agree with the other comments. we should save material for future oil. because the material is oil resources that can be depleted or limited. how it would be if the Earth is running out of oil the Earth. therefore, we should conserve oil materials for children and our grandchildren
I hope this article and others like it help to end the ridiculous notion that "peak oil is a good thing because it will force us to emit less CO2"
Recent studies shows that you could miss how our current trajectory obliges us to rely on hydrocarbons for 86 percent of our projected primary energy needs in 2030, and how that fits with the strong case Hughes makes that the global hydrocarbon peak
This is a much needed information. The energy crisis is still there so we must do whatever we can to at least, lessen its bad effect.
Change the way we use energy but the same companies and countries will be those who do business.
thank you, very good reasearch. I wonder how much oil do you think we can save every year?
ne of the many things I liked about the film \"Road Warrior\", was that everyone seemed a bit insane; no one was left unscathed. Road warrior world, here we come!
Thanks for being such a patient subject when I'm testing out photo gear and, most of all, thanks for kicking my butt at Modern Warfare 2 on the Xbox 360.
Mr. Hughes, your anger at the obtuse "prophet of doom" remark strikes home.
Well, I hear many well-educated people on both sides say we simply don't know if we are causing global warming, thanx.
I'm the Walrus gue-ca-ga-ca-chue Say,"O-blah-de-blah-da Protection against worst weather conditions, safeguarding us from most disasters as oil depletion day is near 2032yr. How is our fields to be plowed or freight to be moved, when all the oil is used up? Adding some electrical cars and changing a few light bulbs don’t cut the mustard people.
ANDREW GARAB, TIMOTHY O’ROURKE; NEW YORK TIMES,-“SOARING CAR CULTURE CLASH.” ENGINEERS; MR. CHAN ZHANG, WANG JANKA PLEASE SEARCH IT ON THE WEB! Guangzhua, China + 15 other cities has 60 gargantuan tunnel machines and China is investing $100 million per mile to restructure their failed transportation system as mass transit subways. Perhaps to replace the over congested vehicles, installate from extreme conditions, to prepare against oil depletion day near 2032yr. This city last year perfected 71 running miles of subway, projecting 83 miles this year, with 500 + more miles in the plans. This includes high speed and local tracks. Stoned walled since 1962:GWB, UNEMPLOYED, NEAR DEAD, IN AZ., Yes WE CAN ENGINEER OUT OF THE PROBLEM. Please send a response. I’ve always cared about everyone, Anyone that Sais, “different is a Liar!!!” Have more info. but need hard address to send it to.
Sincere listener: bggene1004@hotmail.com
