[arretium]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/ Head over to the Whitehouse's website and pose your peak oil question. You never know, he might actually address it. Be careful how you pose your question, don't get over zealous and tell him the world is going to end.

Anyway, we've got 30 minutes starting from right now to respond so if you catch this, head over there and pose the question. Who knows, he might address the issue.

[Muffloj]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ') Secretary Bodman will be joining us in just a minute. Please stay tuned.

[RonMN]

Well, i tried asking an extremely BLAND question just to see...if they don't repond to "what can i do to help?"...they wont respond to nuttin!

[lorenzo]

Sir, as you may know Greenland potentially holds a lot of oil. I have read that the U.S. Government considers Eastern Greenland to belong to North America. As a European, I think Greenland belongs to Europe.
What's President Bush's and your Secretariat's official position on this matter?

lol

[Cynus]

I'm pretty impressed that so many of the questions are cencerning renewable and alternative forms of energy, but the secretary is speaking politician-speak and doesn't mention that the great majority of the money in the bill is payments to oil companies for fossil fuels. And of course every answer ends with "the solution to all our problems is passing the president's energy bill."

[arretium]

I'm bumping this post in hopes that more people will read it.

Secretary Bodman is addressing energy questions now. He got a late start, in fact he was at least 25 minutes late, so we still have some time to post more peak oil questions. Head over there and post your question. Like I said, be careful as we want him to actually respond.

So far, all of his questions center on the same old crap as before. Oil demand from china, Hydrogen economy, lack of media focus on the issue, President's call for Congress to address issue, tax breaks for the rich, yada yada yada.

[Aaron]

probably a bot

[frankthetank]

I asked one, they'll probably just put it in the trash can because it mentioned the notion of oil supplies reaching this so called "Peak".

[arretium]

Well it's over. He didn't address the issue of peak oil.

I can't say I'm suprised. If you really stop and think about it, if the Secretary of Energy acknowledged that we were experiencing peak oil or we were about to experience it in the next 5 years, it would be major news. In fact, it could rattle the markets. I guess I should have thought about that aspect a bit more before I got excited about the prospects of the DOE Secretary actually addressing the issue.

[lorenzo]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cynus', 'I')'m pretty impressed that so many of the questions are cencerning renewable and alternative forms of energy, but the secretary is speaking politician-speak and doesn't mention that the great majority of the money in the bill is payments to oil companies for fossil fuels. And of course every answer ends with "the solution to all our problems is passing the president's energy bill."

[heyhoser]

'And that's why congress needs to pass this bill.'
Man, the Daily Show would have a great time with that q&a session!

[ararboin]

Predictable answers:

Betty, from Hillsville, Virginia writes:
Why is there such silence from the news media regarding our current major problem with increasing gas prices? I listen to the news hoping to hear what we Americans should expect now and in the future...but never hear this subject addressed. Would you comment on this issue? Thank you.

Samuel Bodman
The high price of gas is something that the President is very concerned about, and something we’re working on. The situation we’re experiencing today have been years in the making, and cannot be solved by flipping a switch. But there are things we can do.

First, these prices reflect tight supplies and growing world demand. Because the economies of India and China have been expanding rapidly, they are consuming more and more oil. That’s why it’s important to further develop domestic natural gas and oil resources. This will allow us to become less dependant on foreign oil, while also creating thousands of jobs here at home.

The other thing we can do to help is fix the burdensome regulatory process that, in part, stymies our ability to build refineries. This is a big deal, because even after we import the oil, we sometimes don’t have enough capacity to refine it into gasoline and get the gas to consumers, which leads to tight supplies and rising costs.

Did you know that the President has called on Congress to pass an energy bill to help address these issues over 63 times? We hope that the Congress will pass this bill which will help address these issues in the long term and get it to the President before the summer recess.

David, from Lawrence, KS writes:
Is there anything in the President's Energy bill that will provide immediate relief for gas prices? The way they are right now, Americans like me can't afford to wait 5 or 10 years for oil from Alaska or cheap hybrid cars.

Samuel Bodman
Your question is a good one – and one that I’m asked often.

These fundamental problems that caused the high gas prices that we’re experiencing today were largely ignored during the 1990s and will not be fixed overnight. But we have the opportunity to pass an energy bill today that will help alleviate these types of problems in the future. If Congress acted on the plan the President proposed four years ago, we’d be in a better position today.

In the immediate term, this Administration has personally been encouraging oil-producing countries to maximize their production overseas. In addition, we’re also working to make sure that American families are being treated fairly, and not being price gouged at the pump.

Philip, from Roscoe, Ill. writes:
Why is the President's plan so heavily weighted in favor of the oil, gas and coal industries? Why didnt the President formulate something far more robust and forward-looking than the trivialities presented in this bill?

Samuel Bodman
Phillip, I’m glad you brought this up, because this is a common misconception.

It’s true that the President’s energy plan encourages the development of domestic oil, gas and coal resources. Commonsense dictates that we should reduce our dependence on foreign energy by developing the 10.4 billion barrels of oil in Alaska, which would pump about 1 million barrels a day into the United States, as well as the 250 years worth of coal in an environmentally friendly way.

This, however, is only a small part of the overall plan!

The plan that is before Congress now meets four important objectives: First, the energy bill should encourage the use of technology to improve conservation and efficiency; second, we should develop our existing domestic resources; third, we need to diversify our energy sources by further developing fuels from renewable sources, like ethanol; Finally, modernize our domestic energy infrastructure. So that the energy we we produce can be delivered to our homes in a safe, secure, reliable way.

[Graeme]

DOE and USCAR Invest $195 Million in Energy-Efficient Vehicles

DOE and the U.S. Council for Automotive Research (USCAR) announced on July 14th an agreement to develop advanced high-performance batteries for electric, hybrid electric and fuel cell vehicle applications. USCAR facilitates cooperative research among DaimlerChrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company, and General Motors Corporation. The agreement could reach $125 million over five years; combined with a similar $70-million agreement signed in May, the total joint investments in vehicle technologies could reach $195 million over the next five years.

As part of the new agreement, DOE's FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies Program and USCAR's U.S. Advanced Battery Consortium (USABC) will split the cost of research and development for a number of new battery materials and technologies that have the potential to increase energy storage and charge/discharge performance, improve durability and reliability, and reduce cost. See the DOE press release, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman's comments at the signing, the related DOE press release from May 26th, and the DOE FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies Program.

The DOE/USCAR partnership has been ongoing for more than ten years, and one of its major accomplishments has been the development of the nickel metal hydride battery technology used in most hybrid electric vehicles. USABC is also pursuing the development of advanced lithium-ion systems, which offer the promise of compact, longer-life, high-power and high-energy batteries for electric, hybrid-electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles. See the USABC page on the USCAR Web site.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/news/

[The_Toecutter]

Appears to be more corporate welfare.

I'm tired of these idiots throwing money at future technology when what we have today could work just fine(Battery electric cars more efficient than hydrogen cars by 4 times over). Our tax dollars could be better suited to other things, like mass transit, building publically-owned wind farms, or installing EV charging infrastructure.

[savethehumans]

DOE/USCAR are putting a drop in the bucket for renewables.

I'm sooooo excited. . . .

[Devil]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('savethehumans', 'D')OE/USCAR are putting a drop in the bucket for renewables.

I'm sooooo excited. . . .

[kwftide]

The following essay was taken from the DOE website. Long-Term World Oil Supply Scenarios Link
I apologize if this has been posted previously. If not, I'd be interested in the group's analysis. The following points / questions jumped out at me:
1. It seems they are basing their dates on 2% annual growth which is probably accurate due to China and India.

2. However, I'm wondering about their world recoverable supply numbers. Haven't those numbers been inflated to meet quotas?

3. They mention tar sands and hydrogen fuel cell technology, which we all know require large energy inputs.

4. Their predicted peak is 2037 at 146 mbbls/day. We are currently at around 84 mbbls/day. I find it hard to believe production can expand to that level before the peak. That just doesn't seem possible to me.

Any thoughts are appreciated.

[Ardalla]

I would agree with your #2 statement. Their recoverable reserves numbers are USGS figures adjusted according to the parameters they mention. If they are correct, then 2037 is the resulting peak date.

I don't see any reasons given for why they assume those inflated quota figures represent anything more than manipulation by OPEC as many have noted in this forum. They could have avoided all the excess verbiage and just stated we believe the official figures given by OPEC to be realistic assessments of oil in place, so therefore the POers are nuts.

[nero]

Yes this has been discussed before. original pdf
It's pretty alarming to me that the official position of the department of energy is that the world is going to end sometime around 2037 give or take 20 years.

[zceb90]

If DOE assessment were indeed correct then oil price should be headed for $20 which would make even Michael Lynch's $30 prediction for this year seem pessimistic. Somehow I get the feeling the markets just don't believe DOE's numbers (and neither does Robert Hirsch who was commissioned by DOE to write the recent 'Peak Oil Mitigation' report).

In his 'Oilfield Mega Projects' summary (which was presented by the report's author, Chris Skrebowski of ODAC in both Edinburgh and Lisbon earlier this year), Skrebowski stated that the most accurate 'dial' indicating the proximity of PO was the market price of crude. The $67 this afternoon is a far better indication of how things stand than any 'extrapolated demand based forecasts' of DOE.

Btw I was somewhat surprised to see ref to Hubbert and USGS in the DOE text as it was USGS which, among others, totally dismissed his forecast of US lower 48 peak back in 1956.