by lexicon » Wed 14 Nov 2007, 16:31:40
In many ways I was pleasantly surprised at how much they were able to cover over an hour time slot (or 40-45 minutes figuring in commercials). I was expecting to see a lot of old interviews that I had seen before on End of Suburbia or Crude Awakening. But they were all new interviews of the old faces. Ken Deffeyes sounded pretty much like he usually does in previous docs, but there seemed to be a new urgency in the way Richard Heinberg conveyed his message. I felt like he and David Goodstein and Roscoe Bartlett really did their best not to sugarcoat where they saw our future headed: we have run out of time for a soft landing. The transition to a civilization not run on oil will be PAINFUL.
There was something disturbing about the way Matthew Simmons' research was presented. Not that I think it's a bad thing that his book is getting exposure, but it seemed that within the context of this series, which tends to couch events in ominous terms, the accounting deception that has possibly hidden the Saudi peak of oil production that Simmons laid bare cast the Saudis in a villainous light. I always thought Mike Ruppert was wrong when he said the US would invade Saudi Arabia before it ever invades Iran, now after seeing this program, I'm starting to wonder if a propaganda foundation is being laid oh so subtly. But maybe I'm overreacting.
This wasn't the best Peak Oil documentary, but I think it has the potential with multiple airings to be the most effective documentary in terms of raising public consciousness. I thought they did a great job in the beginning explaining the concept of Peak Oil. What was a little different from other documentaries that I appreciated was how they illustrated just how big an oil powerhouse the United States used to be compared to now. I knew we used to be able to produce 10 mbd, but I didn't know that back in the 50's, the US provided over 50% of the world's oil (20 mbd). Amazing how peaking changes things.
In some ways Oil Apocalypse did a good job conveying the severity and immediacy of Peak Oil, in other ways they were kind of fuzzy. They mentioned 2007 GAO report that we have no federal plan in place to deal with Peak Oil, but that the peak could occur between now and 2040. I was disappointed that they cited this government study but omitted the Hirsch report, which would have made clear to any newbie that if we don't initiate a crash program more than 20 years from the peak, we will be hurtin' for certain. I wish that in covering the alternatives to oil they had clarified the concept of EROEI, though I guess I can excuse them simplifying it into terms of "too expensive", "not a fuel", "uses too much energy to create" to get the message across to John Q. Public that alternatives in the long run will not work. Perhaps they could have spent more time on this point, but I think presenting it this way also reflects the future that we face: the powers that be will throw everything & the kitchen sink at our post-peak society trying to "solve" the problem of Peak Oil.
But the overall point came across clearly in the last 10 minutes: we're too late. The 2012 scenario that they lay out is very chilling. The Greatest Depression is coming and whether the result of that will be oil wars with a nuclear touch or black marketeering with a Mad Max touch remains to be seen. But I give this program credit for illustrating those possibilities. I just hope they air this again at an earlier time. You can't have a wake-up call at an hour when most Americans sleep.