From Petroleum News - "Impressions From Berlin" - Re. ASPO Conference

[hatrack]

EDIT

"The Berlin meeting promised to be interesting because it pitted the proponents of fairly immediate peak oil against the Establishment, represented by the likes of BP, ExxonMobil, the International Energy Agency, the United States Geological Survey, the Energy Information Agency within the U.S. Department of Energy, and Aramco, the Saudi Oil Co. Those represent fairly substantial Goliaths.

The Davids were Dr. Colin Campbell, an avuncular and amusing geologist from Ireland who has single handedly used his retirement to raise awareness of the probable imminence of Peak Oil, and Matthew Simmons, the above-mentioned energy investment banker.

Simmons is a superb analyst who has the singular skill of presenting complex data with believable clarity. They have lots of worthy, well qualified disciples, but the arguments between the two sides have usually been whether the data supports an imminent approach to reaching Peak Oil, or whether it will not occur for a decade or three. The Davids are worried that we should be already preparing for the inevitably decline in crude oil supply, while the Goliaths think that the world will have plenty of oil for at least 20 years of growth.

The workshop was not a disappointment. The two sides slogged it out, albeit, politely. The geological arguments were fascinating if only because they largely pitted former, older, oil company geologist against, current, younger, oil company geologists. Needless to say, the time gap between the two sides was not resolved — they agreed to differ. But the rest of the conference attendees totally accepted the reality, sooner or later, of Peak Oil, and immediately initiated a serious debate of what nations need to do about it.

Davids triumph at conference

One had to conclude that the Davids triumphed on the day, and whether their timing is correct or not is immaterial because something needs to be done to face the aftermath of Peak Oil. The conference, despite the international flavor of its attendees, hardly mentioned the 800 pound energy gorilla, the United States of America. The European Union feels big enough to look after itself, and nearly all the solutions to its energy future during the decline of oil are more concerned with reducing CO2 pollution than coping with the economic upheavals that oil shortages might bring about. The acceptance of Global Warming and the need to address it is a dangerous fundamental difference between the United States and Europe over our energy futures."

EDIT

http://www.petroleumnews.com/pnads/30318660.shtml

[phantom power]

1. so the "optimistic" scenario is 30 years?

What I think is funny: the Big Oil guys seem to be saying "hey, we won't reach peak oil for 30 years! why worry now?"

If we are lucky enough to have another 30 years, all that means is we've been given yet another chance to freaking prepare for this. But their conclusion is "hey, we've got another 30 years to ignore the problem".

[Oggy]

2. Agreed

How do we raise awareness though? I work for a NGO premoting energy efficency, and I approached one of the directors about 6 months ago about Peak Oil and virtually got laughed at, but only because I think he he didn't want to face the hard truth. I suspect the majority don't want to face up to the truth because it is too difficult for them to deal with, but if they don't soon, it will be too late for a soft landing.

[phantom power]

3. I also ponder this

On the bright side, it appears that the problem *is* beginning to get some attention. We may be moving beyond the "laughing" stage.

Even so, there is so much to do. I think that we need to come up with one or more scenarios about what a sustainable energy economy would look like, and how we would transition.

Part of the reason why this is hard is that most credible scenarios involve many facets. The current scenario is, if nothing else, easy to understand: we pump oil/gas out of the ground, and it provides essentially all of our energy, and most of our plastics and lubricants.

Whatever replaces this scenario will be probably more "messy". Lots of different energy sources, and possibly lots of different energy-carriers and energy storage mediums.

It doesn't make for a convenient sound-bite. But we should take something to presidential candidates, the senate, etc.

[Oggy]

5. We should look at the issue

in the same way we view most natural systems now. That is by looking at them in a networked way. The Internet and computing fields crossed in to study of network systems in nature. So messy need not be messy. I am not in any way or form any sort of expert on networks ( although I do work in IT ), so maybe someone else on DU would be able to explain how an energy network could look, or argue me out of this viewpoint :-)

Being a Brit ( but more at home at DU than anywhere else I've been on the Internet ) I plan on writing to my MP and to at least one MP from each party. One of the reasons I come to DU so much, is most of the problems in the world are worldwide ones and caused to a large degree by western nations, and Peak Oil being one of these issues, will only be dealt with if the issue is raised in the conscience of all countries and in the minds of more people across the globe.

[NNadir]

4. The economic future belongs to those who measure reality, not those who

regard it is as a replay of the past.

If the United States does not "accept" the reality of Global Warming and the related concept of fossil fuel depletion, the United States is economically doomed. This is not purely an environmental consequence; it also involves the role of innovation in economic greatness. The Europeans are working; they are thinking; they are stretching and examining the limits of the possible. We, on the other hand, are lying in the hot tub on a bender, swilling our own drool, choking on it.

This particular scenario of great nations becoming technologically inflexible and, as a result economically paralyzed, because of an arrogance about their own comfortable history is not a particularly novel outcome. It happens time and time again.

Of course, we are in worse shape than some nations of the past because we have an ideologically rigid government that myopically insists on the real point of conservatism, that nothing should be tried the first time.