Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Rat's Nest - Chronicles of Collapse -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (5106)	11/18/2006 6:48:39 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24232

Attempt to discredit theory falls short of making its case Friday, November 17, 2006 Areport from the respected Cambridge Energy Re search Associates that seeks to debunk the so-called peak-oil theory has received much attention in energy circles but falls well short of making its case. The peak-oil theory posits that the worldwide production of conventional oil is nearing the highest level it will ever attain, to be followed by a long decline. This will come as worldwide demand for oil is increasing, thus causing oil prices to rise significantly, with possible shortages occurring. In addition, peak-oil proponents argue that investments in unconven tional sources of oil, such as Canada's tar sands, as well as production of biofuels, are not going to be suffi cient to cover the gap in supplies. Advertisement Those who find the argu ments for peak oil com pelling include U.S. Reps. Roscoe G. Bartlett, R-Md., and Tom Udall, D-N.M., cofounders and cochairmen of the Congressional Peak Oil Caucus. They believe the government needs to launch a crash mitigation program that involves "the total participation of the American public like we had with World War II Victory Gardens, the technological focus of the Apollo Moon program and the urgency of the Manhattan project." Otherwise, the United States and the world face an energy shock of monumental proportions. The CERA study uses extremely optimistic projections of conventional oil still to be discovered. It assumes technological leaps will occur to develop unconventional petroleum sources. It does project that a peak will occur, but not for another 25 years or so. But society cannot wait until a peak occurs to deal with the consequences, not if it wants to transition to other forms of energy without massive economic and social dislocations. Two other fairly recent reports -- one done for the Department of Energy and the other for the Army Corps of Engineers -- warn that a minimum of 20 years are required to navigate a relatively smooth transition from a petroleum-based economy to one based on other forms of energy. The peak-oil debate, which has generated a small library of literature, is not nearly so arcane as it might appear. Ultimately, it is about the future of a society that consumes massive amounts of oil as if plenty of oil will always be available. The peak-oil theory does not claim that we're about to run out of oil, but rather that we're about to reach the limit of the world's ability to produce oil in ever-increasing quantities to meet an ever-expanding appetite for oil. Even if the optimistic Cambridge study is assumed to be closer to the mark, the challenge to get ready for a world in which oil is no longer cheap is urgent. If the peak-oil theory is closer to the truth, we've already wasted too much precious time. pennlive.com