[LoneSnark]

When they say Minimum Operating Level, they do not mean "watch out, it better not get below that or everyone dies!" No, what they mean is "that is the lowest you will ever see it. It cannot drop below that point without draining the pipelines, which not being idiots they will not do."

If a quantity of oil must be left in the pipelines to keep them operating then the pipeline owners, eager not to put themselves out of business, will leave that quantity of oil in the pipeline. They will buy it if they have to (they do have money).

[CarlinsDarlin]

I don't know, Pops. I just don't see it coming. This generation of folks is a different generation - completely oblivious to the whole idea of self-sacrifice, community-mindedness, and "the greater good." The past 50-60 years in the US has turned out a generation of self-centered, mindless automatons, happy in front of the idiot boxes as long as they have endless supplies of consumer products.

So what happens when those products stop coming and people suddenly start doing without? They'll find a boogey man to blame - another country, perhaps? (Think resource wars... you certainly can't place the blame on something as simple as resource depletion - how do you go to war with that?) The US has always had a boogey man to blame its problems on - that way they don't have to accept the blame themselves.

And so, until the military machine can no longer run and we can no longer afford to wage war against an imaginary boogeyman, the people will never accept the reality en masse. By that time, as has been pointed out, it will be far past the time when any substantive changes can be made.

Yeah, I'm a little doomeristic today. Perhaps its because even people I talked to about peakoil years ago (even in light of recent events and changes) STILL don't get it. They still make excuses. I just don't see that changing.

I hope I'm wrong.

Kathy

[kpeavey]

M King Hubbert sounded the first clarion call in 1956.
It was answered with laughter.

The next call was in 1973. People were unsettled for a little while, but went back to living their lives as they always have.

The 80's brought the Iran/Iraq war and extreme oil/gas prices. Still, the population did not heed the warnings

1991, the Gulf war.
Any response then?

2002, Gulf War, the Sequel.
This has indeed produced some responses, but not to oil or energy problems.

2003, the NE Blackout
as soon as the power came back on, so did the TVs and ACs

What is it going to take to get the attention of the US population sufficient to make a difference? HARDSHIP. Economic difficulty, energy shortages, significant supply disruptions to fuel or food, grid failure, unemployment, recession, depression, regression.

People can be intensely resistant to change. Once change is forced upon them, they will reluctantly react. People hear of a crisis on the TV, it is a problem until the story goes away. Without a problem impacting them directly, in a manner that forces them to alter their lifestyles, I'm afraid it will continue to be ignored. There's just too much good stuff on TV to be bothered by someone else's problems.

[EnergyUnlimited]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheTurtle', 'I') don't foresee most people waking up to any clarion call, Pops. I think most people will just limp along, struggling to make ends meet while desperately clinging to their old way life until it becomes obvious that their old way of life is no more. And at that point it will be too late to do anything other than cope.

Does that sound too doomeristic? Sorry, I was just out in the cold, gloomy rain with my dogs and I haven't quite warmed up yet.

[LoneSnark]

Look, the question of Peak Oil may not be an opinion, but 'when' is most definitely an opinion. There is no way to prove that it is going to peak within the next few years, or even the next decade until after it has happened.

Similarly, when it does happen there is no way to prove how the human race will react. Will it be as you say, by burning itself to the ground in frustration? Or will it be as I say, muddling through? We are talking about a future event, we have no way to prove either way (we have similar historical examples, which back up my claims, but are not proof).

As such, it is pure opinion as to whether Peak Oil will be doomsday worthy. Similarly, it is pure opinion as to whether Peak Oil will occur soon or a hundred years from now.

This is why you cannot convince your friends, and why your friends cannot convince you; you are debating pure opinion on the matter.

[wisconsin_cur]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('LoneSnark', 'W')hen they say Minimum Operating Level, they do not mean "watch out, it better not get below that or everyone dies!" No, what they mean is "that is the lowest you will ever see it. It cannot drop below that point without draining the pipelines, which not being idiots they will not do."

If a quantity of oil must be left in the pipelines to keep them operating then the pipeline owners, eager not to put themselves out of business, will leave that quantity of oil in the pipeline. They will buy it if they have to (they do have money).

[Bas]

I thought a 100 dollar oil would do it, but it looks more like 200 dollar nowadays, but only if we reach it relatively soon, say by the end of 2008. If things keep on developing as gradual as they have been, I doubt we'll ever be able to say when the effects of peak oil begun. Anyway, this gradual scenario I see as one that's quite positive, as it gives us time to gradually adjust without sudden disruptions, and therefor a decreased chance of acute shortages. In short it means that the pricing mechanism works.

[Pops]

I guess I am still on my Rachel Carson kick - more of a bottom up question.

Personally, I think timelines really don't matter in the context of when, not if and are really more a distraction in promoting the idea of get it while the getting's good.

When Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring, folks who had endured hardships were convinced of the motto: Better Living Through Chemistry and fought any infringement on their right to use whatever chemical with a lablel promising to make their life easier. Heck I still hear older folks bemoan the loss of DDT.

Notwithstanding their wishes, changes were been made - maybe sometime too many changes but overall to the good I think.

Perhaps my title was wrong, maybe more along the lines of What Will Spark A PO Groundswell?

[TheDude]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('LoneSnark', 'W')hen they say Minimum Operating Level, they do not mean "watch out, it better not get below that or everyone dies!" No, what they mean is "that is the lowest you will ever see it. It cannot drop below that point without draining the pipelines, which not being idiots they will not do."

[pedalling_faster]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'S')o when is the PO Pearl Harbor?

[LoneSnark]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his assumes:
a) someone with the authority actually knows what the MOL is.
b) that the operators are competent
c) that they will act on that competence
d) that oil can be purchased
of course it could just be a moot point. As someone on the outer edges of the pipeline if they stop releasing gasoline from it (to keep it above MOL) the net effect for me is the same. No gas. To those who are not aware it would be a bit of a Pearl Harbor event.

[lateStarter]

Maybe I'm showing my ignorance of pre-1941 history, but was anyone expecting an attack on Pearl Harbor despite all the other serious events taking place at that time? I would suggest that the PO Pearl Harbor will occur in a similar manner. Out of the blue. In other words, no matter how well informed you are, the actual 'event' will still catch most of us off guard.

[wisconsin_cur]

Lsnark

that actually was helpful. I confess a rather pessimistic view of humanity. Where I would follow up is by asking about your opinion, nt of owners or the general public, but of technicians. the people with the physical hands on the physical controls. A lot of privately owned oil tankers have been thrown upon the rocks by reckless (or drunk) techies. A lot of patients die for medical errors, at the hands of caring but (overworked? careless?) medical technicians (nurses). Plenty of knowledgible loggers and farmers get chewed up in their own machinery every year. They lose something more than billions, they loose their life, or the life of a child.

Only in textbooks is the aspect of luck removed from the equation of everyday living. Perhaps the owners of the pipelines have a god-like ability to oversee their employees but the margin of error gets smaller with each draw on operating level and luck becomes a lot more important of a variable.

[LoneSnark]

I am here to serve

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')here I would follow up is by asking about your opinion, nt of owners or the general public, but of technicians. the people with the physical hands on the physical controls.

[wisconsin_cur]

Of course there still is my point that whether the infrastructure fails or just turns off the effect is the same, at least for those of us at the end of the pipeline and the hundreds of millions who would panic when the news flash comes across the wires "No gas in the upper Midwest"

If the pipeline does fail it won't be because some CEO said "darn the torpedoes" it will be because the night guy who is suppose to hit button Z if dial B approaches the red line was watching porn on his laptop or someone did some bad math in deciding where the red line should be.

[LoneSnark]

That has been true all along. I fail to see why operator error becomes more likely in a low inventory event.

And my point still stands that we can simply fix whatever went wrong with the pipeline after the fact, since the owners should be willing to pay anywhere up to $9.999 billion to get it running again (assuming it is worth $10 billion if used as a pipeline and only $1 million as scrap metal).

[wisconsin_cur]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('LoneSnark', 'T')hat has been true all along. I fail to see why operator error becomes more likely in a low inventory event.

And my point still stands that we can simply fix whatever went wrong with the pipeline after the fact, since the owners should be willing to pay anywhere up to $9.999 billion to get it running again (assuming it is worth $10 billion if used as a pipeline and only $1 million as scrap metal).

[Pops]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('LoneSnark', 'I') am here to serve

[killJOY]

Quote: "When will PO become a clarion cal to do more than tap on some message board?"


I have many cabbages in my cellar. Does that count?

[LoneSnark]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 't')here is still the problem that the psycological effect of a pipeline shutdown or shutdown to the upper midwest is, psychologicaly still a dec 7 event. a wake up call, a failure of MOL's. So they can put the thing back together again, I have never heard anyone say that a drop below MOL wrecks the pipeline. I don't know if it does or not. I'm a historian and bit of a philosopher, I am not an engineer.