[Aaron]

Yes we can roll it back... not my point.

[smallpoxgirl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', 'O')h yes... & feel free to bombard these scumbags with your opinions...

[holmes]

gas prices are going "down" everything is fine. shut up, nothing to see here move along and keep growing. In ten years the market and alternatives will adjust so just sit and wait and they will solve all the minor disruptions. The amount of oil we have consumed is inconsequential in relation to world supply.


The scariest part is that the folks in their respective industries do not understand why and what has allowed their respective industries and themselves to even exist in the first place. Hmm wonder what that could be?
who needs wiki anyway.
It doesnt take a rocket scientist to understand what we are dealing with here. Just some common sense and understanding of the "simple" things in life.

[Aaron]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', 'O')h yes... & feel free to bombard these scumbags with your opinions...

[s1lv3r]

hacked

[KevO]

I've been on my travels and away from the peak oil 'scene' for a bit what with bird flu and more missiles flying than bonfire night.
But I notice a few things on Wiki re Peak Oil that I've missed, such as Mexico announcing that Cantarell began depletion in March and that Saudi Aramaco have 'admitted' its fields are declining at 8% per annum!
Jeex, you have a break and things really do change!
I include the text but if you go to the actual link yiu can link off for more info

the text
Has it happened already?

Of the three largest oil fields in the world, two have peaked. Mexico announced that its giant Cantarell Field entered depletion in March, 2006, as did the huge Burgan field in Kuwait in November, 2005. In April, 2006, a Saudi Aramco spokesman admitted that its mature fields are now declining at a rate of 8% per year, and its composite decline rate of producing fields is about 2%[12], thus implying that Ghawar, the largest oil field in the world may have peaked. New drilling in Saudi Arabia may be able to replace a portion of that country's production decline.

Traditional natural gas supplies are also under the constraints of production peaks, which especially affect specific geographic regions because of the difficulty of transporting the resource over long distances. Natural gas production may have peaked on the North American continent in 2003, with the possible exception of Alaskan gas supplies which cannot be developed until a pipeline is constructed. Natural gas production in the North Sea has also peaked. UK production was at its highest point in 2000, and declining production and increased prices are now a sensitive political issue there. Even if new extraction techniques yield additional sources of natural gas, like coalbed methane, the energy returned on energy invested will be much lower than traditional gas sources, which inevitably leads to higher costs to consumers of natural gas.

There are some countries that have already passed their oil production peak.

more here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

[Petro]

Kev it's great that you've had an insightful moment...but is there anythying new here?

[linlithgowoil]

thats the problem with peak oil. once the ins and outs have been discussed there isnt really anything else to say except - lets wait and see if it has happened.

[KevO]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Petro', 'K')ev it's great that you've had an insightful moment...but is there anythying new here?

[cubes]

Maybe we should have a sticky (I might have missed it if there is one) with all the undisputed facts/news so people have a quick reference?

[thor]

[quote="linlithgowoil"]thats the problem with peak oil. once the ins and outs have been discussed there isnt really anything else to say except - lets wait and see if it has happened.[/quote]

Agreed. The peak isn't that interesting, it's the dive thereafter that will give us plenty to talk about.

[thor]

[quote="linlithgowoil"]thats the problem with peak oil. once the ins and outs have been discussed there isnt really anything else to say except - lets wait and see if it has happened.[/quote]

Agreed. The peak isn't that interesting, it's the dive thereafter that will give us plenty to talk about.

[grabby]

I feel butterflies in my tummy.

I think we can call it TOP oil or flat oil

The next step is probably not economic,
it is probably the Nations getting angry.
Elbow each other accidentally in the face.
Fisting in the nose.
Knocking out a few teeth, like that.

Little things...

[ohanian]

From http://www.abc.com.au/rn/philosopherszo ... 78536.htm#

So, how long will it take for people to realise that wikipedia isn't working? Will it take another half-year? Will it take ten years? I'll tell you what I worry about, and the reason why I think this is so important.

The way that digital culture affects the world is different from the way previous cultures affected the world. What happens with digital stuff is it's not so much what people like me or anyone else says, but it's the structure of the tools we use. And since the internet and computers are what connect us with each other and they're what connect us with our own memories more and more, you can have ideas that are built into the very structure of the tools that become quite important.

So what I'm worried about is if this Wiki thing really gets locked in place in the way the internet develops, then a generation that grows up in it could be very vulnerable to mob behaviours and social crises.

Right now there's no question that the principal problems that the world faces are not the ones related to anything we're talking about here.

The world of fundamentalist religious people and the question of the oil economy and global warming and all these other things are so much more important and influential, but as we look to 10 or 20 years from now, the influence of computers and the internet will grow and grow because it's so deeply ingrained, and at that time, little things like how prevalent collectivism is within the tools that we use, will become big things, they'll become more and more amplified and more and more influential.

And so I do think it's very important to criticise these things now while they're still in their formative stages than to try to soften the negative qualities of what we'll end up with when it becomes ever more influential.

[rwwff]

wikipedia might not be perfect, but its head and shoulder above anything else available eletronically or in print, at least in print that any normal person might reasonably expect to buy.

[Hoplite2]

What he's trying to say is : "I don't agree with with the WIKI article about peak oil" (It's too logical and devoid of emotional overtones) Typical liberal- can't say what he really means but camoflages his argument in all kinds of "cultural implications" mumbo jumbo.

[rwwff]

In other words, free speech, but only so long as my side of the story gets the best presentation.

[azreal60]

Perhaps if you listed why digital tools cause us to be vulnerable to mob behaviours and social crisises, we might be a little less skeptical? Frankly, I'm not sure how I see digital tools making us more like to be vulnerable to those types of things. The tools change, the behaviours that people are vulnerable to really don't.

[Lighthouse]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ohanian', 'F')rom http://www.abc.com.au/rn/philosopherszo ... 78536.htm#

So, how long will it take for people to realise that wikipedia isn't working? Will it take another half-year? Will it take ten years? I'll tell you what I worry about, and the reason why I think this is so important.

The way that digital culture affects the world is different from the way previous cultures affected the world. What happens with digital stuff is it's not so much what people like me or anyone else says, but it's the structure of the tools we use. And since the internet and computers are what connect us with each other and they're what connect us with our own memories more and more, you can have ideas that are built into the very structure of the tools that become quite important.

So what I'm worried about is if this Wiki thing really gets locked in place in the way the internet develops, then a generation that grows up in it could be very vulnerable to mob behaviours and social crises.

Right now there's no question that the principal problems that the world faces are not the ones related to anything we're talking about here.

The world of fundamentalist religious people and the question of the oil economy and global warming and all these other things are so much more important and influential, but as we look to 10 or 20 years from now, the influence of computers and the internet will grow and grow because it's so deeply ingrained, and at that time, little things like how prevalent collectivism is within the tools that we use, will become big things, they'll become more and more amplified and more and more influential.

And so I do think it's very important to criticise these things now while they're still in their formative stages than to try to soften the negative qualities of what we'll end up with when it becomes ever more influential.

[Concerned]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Hoplite2', 'W')hat he's trying to say is : "I don't agree with with the WIKI article about peak oil" (It's too logical and devoid of emotional overtones) Typical liberal- can't say what he really means but camoflages his argument in all kinds of "cultural implications" mumbo jumbo.