[AdzP]

Original piece is here:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ ... 144333.htm

fyi

[2007]

I just skimmed the article again, a wide range of 'traditional' suggestions. However, I love this one: tyre pressure!

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')ar-pooling, telecommuting and even corrections to tyre pressures are also suggested.

[EnviroEngr]

No replies yet.

Will keep trying....

[shortonoil]

Check your tyre pressure. Seems like that should handle that 3.5 mb/d ,07 shortfall.

[Aqua]

Actually checking your tyre pressure is a pretty good idea for fuel conservation. From the top of my head I think the fuel saving is something like 5%. Multiply that by every car in the land and thats a lot of petrol/deisil in a year

[Whitecrab]

From Aljazeera's report on this meeting:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')ccording to the IEA's little-known emergency treaty, the Agreement on an International Energy Programme (IEP), "measures to achieve demand restraint fall into three main classes - persuasion and public information, administrative and compulsory measures, and finally, allocation and rationing schemes".

This would mean that countries who signed up to the treaty, including the five biggest economies of the world - US, Japan, Germany, UK and France - would all have to institute cuts.

"In the event of an activation of IEP emergency response measures, each IEA Member country will be expected to immediately implement demand restraint measures sufficient to reduce oil consumption by 7% of normal demand levels. In a more severe disruption, this could be raised to 10%."

[Liamj]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Whitecrab', '
')
Does this mean the IEA can force the 5 signatory countries to institute draconian conservation measures, at the drop of a hat? Would the countries really have to follow it? And if so, is this a good thing or a bad thing?

[small_steps]

"If we assume that the price of oil during a crisis may rise to as high as $75 or even $100 per barrel, then anything below this level could be economically beneficial to implement." pg 93
If we read this to mean an increase OF $75-100/BBL the conclusions make a LITTLE more sense, but as written:

WOW- The proposed actions are propposed to go into effect when prices spike TO $75-100/BBL. They aren't going to spike to that level, they are just going to attain those levels, and then surpass them. There are some seriously drastic measures shown at those price levels, especially with the current attitudes to changing habits to save fuel, which are currently quite miniscule. It is very disconcerting that these intergovermental agencies are proposing these command style programs when the market is showing that there is no crisis at least at these price levels. However, the cost analysis shows that the more draconian policies are simply not going to happen. It appears that the govs want to appear to be in charge and have programs to limit the costs to the consumer (and to absolve them of whatever resonsibility that consumer might momentarily have). But the consumer based programs proposed are nothing new, and are heard anytime we hear what we might be able to do to counter higher gas prices. However, there are a number of gov based programs that will greatly distort the supply/demand situation, and the question of how to pay for these and how to keep a black market from taking hold and "cheating" from occuring are left for another day. And what happens if price controls are implemented, and the "excess" profits of the oil producers are taxed, does oil production increase, stagnate, or do the companies stop drilling? (especially regarding the overall S/D sitatution today and into the future)
Interestingly, the thing starts out stating that accurate information for the consumer is utmost in importance, and never seems to take the possibility that a gradual tightening in supply seriously.
A problem I see with the more gov based programs are the capacity of the infrastruture to handle the increased load. (Busses)

I believe that if we let the market work, the problems of rationing/shortages will be minimized, what I have seen is that the industry that is willing to survive sees what is happening and is making the appropriate adjustments, otherwise more hydrogen fuel cell, USGS and DOE projections will still be the name of the game.

[Sys1]

Interesting to see that IEA doesn't believe in alternatives energy. All is about conservation of oil left. Moreover, they still not ready to cancel capitalism economy. They want to preserve growth ideology.

When supply disruptions will hit production, i'm eagger to know what they'll propose

[airstrip1]

This is a very worrying document. Whilst it could be intended as a direct response to the imminent peaking of world oil production I still expect western governments to use a fiscally induced recession as the initial means of controlling demand. My personal view is that the emergency that the IEA has in mind is more likely to be an attack on Iran. Such a conflict could cause severe supply disruptions leading to a sudden and very dramatic hike in oil prices .

[SidneyTawl]

Matt Simmons and others have raised the possiblity lately that SA may have damaged their oil fields from over production. What if (we are playing what if games), that the IEA has recieved information that this "might" or has happened. I read a post here that claimed overall output from SA had fallen lately. If so the Saudi's would be claiming that this would only be temporary and they would move to drilling in other areas, and this would take some time, the ol nothing to worry about move along philosophy. The IEA would take the best corporate viewpoint.

The fact that the IEA has even published this doucment considering their past history of oil reserves and oil to be found is nothing to sneeze at is it.


How many elephants can you put in a room before someone notices.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') believe that if we let the market work, the problems of rationing/shortages will be minimized,

[Bubbling_Crude]

I may have to play devil's advocate here. Regardless of IEA's previous non-responses to the PO threat, or of their disregard for alternative energy solutions, perhaps a few of their stated objectives should be embraced by the enlightened few here:

• Increases in public transit usage
• Increases in carpooling
• Telecommuting and working at home
• Changes in work schedules
• Driving bans and restrictions
• Speed limit reductions
• Information on tyre pressure effects

Maybe numbers 5 and 6 would irritate a few. OK, they would infuriate millions of motorists in the US. So what? Millions of motorists in the US already infuriate millions of other motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians in the US. BushCo and Americans simply don't like having solutions dictated to them, whether the issue is Global Warming, justifiable cause for war in the Midddle East, or energy. Treaties be damned. But that doesn't mean the solutions are necessarily wrong.

[RonMN]

What i've heard about ghawar, They have been pumping oil by both primary and secondary means at the same time (pumping in water) for decades...If this is all about a decline in SA, i fear that the "decline" of ghawar will be more like a car hitting a tree at 70 mph. So all of these "limitations" that could be placed on us, we would do anyway due to high fuel costs...I just don't like being "told" what to do.

[2007]

sort of.

Vacancy as 'Senior oil market analyst', whatever that is.

March Oily market report, p. 2.

http://omrpublic.iea.org/currentissues/full.pdf

[ehv_nl]

@SidneyTawl

Matt Simmons and others have raised the possiblity lately that SA may have damaged their oil fields from over production.

I've read the al jazeera article which has Matthew Simmons warning about this, but have you any information of others confirming that?

[SidneyTawl]

I think Matt Simmons was the first to say this for the Mainstream public media. ACTUALLY ask the question out loud so to speak. He had spoken in previous interviews of the dangers of the type of drilling and injection methods the Saudi's were using. I had seen it (possibility of damage) raised on some forums before he said it publically. Using his "worries" for the basis. This was supposition and I think like Matt Simmons it is "supposition", because only they know the real interior workings of their fields. In reading at other sites and news articles I read where other engineers concured the drilling methods that the Saudi's are using are dangerous.

Which brings up the value Valerie Palme may have had.

IMO Matt Simmons made that statement not for the Peak Oil crowd. He made it for the Saudi's to hear. They were the recepient.

So if engineers agree that the Saudi's methods could be dangerous. Why did Matt Simmons go from possible to "asking the question". Was it out of personal reasons or was there other outside influence to put some heat to the fire.

Is it true that SA just said today they would not increase light sweet production, only increase sour. Does that really mean anything to Ghawar. Why can't or won't they increase LS. Seems to me they claimed they had plenty of room to expand.

(Might have been nice to have a deep cover agent starting to get inside the SA oil circle. (didn't though).

[The_Virginian]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')Driving bans and restrictions

[some_guy282]

IEA to call for global 55mpg speed limit Story here.

[jato]

This is related to:

This thread