BREAKING!! President Obama just admitted Peak Oil on national TV.

It's about damn time! This is a pivotal admission in US history. My concern on this topic has just been vindicated by the President.

Now, it's time to get to work!

More on this from me later.

Today is the turning point.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Your post does not contribute anything to the discussion at hand.

About time one politician admitted it.

:eyes:

for the past decade or better?

:eyes:

It's allegedly the motive why the government caused 9-11 so they could invade Afghanistan. Except we've been there many years, haven't built a pipeline, and the Russians and Chinese are bypassing Afghanistan.

Not that it made good sense in the first place.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8421977#8422061

'Cause if it is, please educate us with legitimate links instead of rhetoric:

Just stupid tabloid pseudoscience.

Why not educate us?

1. You didn't use the magic word.
2. I'm not going to do your homework for you.
3. You're more fun without the education.

It's obvious, you're all talk w nothing to back it up.

if you believe that the AFPAC war is not related- directly- to controlling the regions oil and gas resources, you should perhaps consider a bit of time listening, rather than speaking.

Denying anyone else the "use" of the AFPAC region is every bit as important to the global energy puzzle, as direct control of wells in Iran, or Iraq. Control of oil is a long term project, so not having pipelines in place in a scant 8 years does not seem strange to me.
Trying to dilute this simple truth by trotting out 9/11 seems sophmoric.

My feeling is you've spent much more much time mocking it than informing yourself about it.

Ignore the 9-11 thing and stick to the essential fact that oil is a finite resource and that accessible oil, where the cost in money and energy to extract it does not exceed the price and energy that can be created with this oil, will eventually get scarser.

Pipeline route. Doesn't matter if it's oil, gas, or the mother lode of fizzy water. If giant corporations want it, the US government spends precious lives and more money than we have to provide it to those corporations. That is the point of why we are there.

the most vital strategic oil region in the world (~1997)..."but in the absence of a Perle Harbor like attack on the US" the US Public will never go for a military incursion.
You've been around long enough to know this.

Maybe you should learn something before you go popping off.

constantly asks the same question to the President. I just feel embarrased for her each time. time to move on !

Surely, you didn't actually mean that. If so, you are incredibly misinformed.

thanks but no thanks for your concern.

Where?
When?
any links??

I missed it...damn.

Did he actually SAY peak oil? that'd be amazing.

I was really surprised that ABC had a special addressing peak oil (and climate change) in Spring 2009, with Heinberg, et al, and nary a peep in follow-up.

So I suspect the MSM will bury this.

However, if they don't, I have doubts they'll lead with transition towns and folks like John Michael Greer, and instead there will be this initial rush for non-communal survivalism.

I was hoping there could be a gradual role-out of the concept of peak oil to keep people from destructive freaking out.

who are aware of the Peak Oil issue use to describe the situation that indicates we've reached the global peak of oil production. He also used the words (paraphrasing) "we need to transition to something more sustainable".

Peak Oil was mentioned recently on Ratigan, in the New Yorker (website), and just two days ago by Mike Papantonio on The Ed Show.

Now that he has said it, the MSM will completely ignore it.

run out.

We live on a sphere of finite volume. Even if the thing was filled ENTIRELY with oil, it would still eventually run out.

OF COURSE we're going to run out of oil. This idea that "PEAK OIL" :o :o :o is some groundbreaking, shocking piece of un-thought-of information being hushed up by spooky PTBs, is ridiculous.

We will run out of oil, and that is one of many reasons why, of course, we need to transition to something more sustainable. The problem is, there are no easy answers (yet, at least) for the second part of the equation, although I happen to believe that significant investment could bring the costs of solar, wind, wave, etc. down considerably and increase availability.

But Obama isn't saying anything ground-breaking, here, unless maybe one lives in the Sarah Palin universe where Jesus will ride in on his dinosaur and ensure that the oil never runs out.

been trying since day one here to warn about it and nobody cares and most consider it poppycock, even though it has occured in every depleted well in history. This is what the excitement is all about. For me, it's vidication from all the grief I've sustained on this board for talking about it. Vindication provided by President Obama.

I have a hard time believing that.

The good news is, I think most of us want the same thing. Obviously we need to find sustainable ways of powering our planet.

to keep prices high, and quite a few of them favor the debunked "abiotic oil theory".

It would be an invitation to capital to run to alternative energy sources and to states to start nationalizing the oil companies.

they did deny it for a while, of course, heads in the sand an all that, but they downplay it, talking about "undulating plateau" and other such fuzzy thinking. This of course, doesn't stop the conspiracy theorists.

of our oil future. And it makes all the "I ain't gonna drive less, dammit!!" responses to the suggestion on another thread that we cut back on petroleum consumption all the more disturbing and republican-like.........

Sad, how bad the denial is........

Anyone who doesn't get that is really in denial. Whether we need to do it next week or next year, we need to do it, so the sooner we get on it, the better. Is the reality "grim"? I guess it depends on how you look at it. If you expect yesterday's answers to work for tomorrow's problems, yeah, it's gonna look grim, because that won't work.

increase efficiency first and foremost.

We have become a wasteful, slothful society in the U.S.

not out of some conspiracy, but because there is no upside after the hump, as it were. Some people, particularly the oil companies and politicians don't want to talk about it.

It was so subtle you almost missed it but it was there.

When the pols fronting for the global corporations who really run things start admitting that kind of fact, things are beyond the tipping point.

we looking for oil 5000 feet below the surface of the ocean?
Still, surprised to see an actual world leader admit it.

those who protected the status quo so the same ol group got as much money on the old methods as possible.


Look at all the risks being taken to squeeze the last penny of profit possible from oil. The powers that run things won't switch until they have the technology needed for the next phase of global energy/resources all tied up. They had no intention of letting anyone new come in early to get us moved in the direction we need to go. That's why they ruined Carter's attempts to ease the population into dealing with harsh realities while there may have been some time to get things on track and not disrupt all the common people for the profit of the very few.

Yeah, the fact that Obama spoke the words today is an admission that the dipstick is dry and the engine is burning to ruin.

I don't know.

Maybe he'll tell us about Cheney's little closed door 'regulatory meetings' with the oil boyz.

But of course DOJ won't go after him. I don't even know why we have a DOJ...oh, to let all the Corporations tell us what to do.

WASF

Maybe we don't get them on torture, but this oil spill is a result of Cheney and his cozy relationships between industry and govt.

woman who headed M & M has resigned so that will simply end that. Blame the woman and shut the case. She didn't look like the type to use her computer for pron, but it's settled.

Now Salazar who knows absolutely nothing about oceans or oil (he's a cattle rancher who has no political experience...didn't even finish his first Senate term) can close the case.

:mad: :argh: :grr:

For those of us in the cube farms today?

those of us who are peak oil aware use his very words spoken today to describe the premise of the current peak of world oil production.

I have myself been researching and observing oil production daily since 2006 as the peak oil community was waiting to see if the May 2005 peak would hold. It was barely broken (after considerable shenanigans to bolster the crude oil production numbers) in July 2008 but we have been on what's known as a "peak plateau" since 2005 that has been trending to the down side by about 1.8% YOY since 2005. Once it begins to decline at a rate faster than 4.5%, there will be no going back.

For those who don't know what Peak Oil is, go here: http;//www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net

Here is the current chart of global oil production:


I will be composing a comprehensive post that I will post later today.

:-)

NGU.

Not to take anything away from Obama, but really...if they're drilling hundreds of miles from shore at such great expense, doesn't that mean that someone's having just a leeeeeeetle bit of trouble getting it on land? :think:

that domestic oil is only a part of a larger plan to move to alternative sources of energy like solar and wind made me quite happy.

"The Stone Age didn't end because we ran out of stones."
-Sheik Yamani, former minister in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries

There are plenty of other reasons why we should stop using oil.

There is nothing that can replace or scale up to crude oil. There's nothing that can be used to make the products that are made from crude oil. Sure, there's some chemistry that can be done. But it will fall way short of scale.

Imagine what we could do if we subsidized renewables at the rate we subsidize fossil fuels.

I know there are lots of products (other than energy) made from oil, but do we really need plastic bags and bottles? Can't we replace these with products made from renewable sources? Can't we make new products from recycling the old ones?

I don't see our reliance on oil, particularly in the amounts we're using, as essential. It certainly isn't sustainable.

Here's the study on wind supplying 20% of our energy needs by 2030. I think an updated study is due out soon that is even more optimistic:
http://www.20percentwind.org/20p.aspx?page=Overview

use in place of oil to mamufacture, oh ... I dunno .... let's say medical supplies?

What medical supplies are manufactured using oil, that couldn't be manufactured with recycled material? We have enough plastic floating around to last for generations. Let's use that.

not to mention herbicides? All of which are chemicals derived from or produced using natural gas and oil.

going organic would mean rolling back intensive farming altogether. Think about the implications of that for about 7 billion people.

I'd be happy to see factory farms go out of business. Waste from Purdue's factory chickens are killing the Chesapeake Bay.

I'll also be happy when our reliance on filthy fossil fuels ends. It really is inevitable.

7 Billion people can only be somewhat supported when augmented with oil. This earth wasn't meant to sustain this many of this species.

on non essential uses of oil like personnal transportation,military adventures and cheap plastic crap from mallfart we can use whats left for things that are essential.

Trying to secure oil supplies and profits by making a fake bloody crusade is just plain nucking futs.

I hope he was as clear about Peak Oil's IMMEDIACY as President Carter was about Peak Oil's future ramifications.

.

to the video of the president.

@49:30 he describes what Peak Oilers have known all along but have been derided for saying:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/293762-1

Here, I'll transcript it for ya:

President Obama: Now let me make one broader point, though, about energy: The fact that oil companies now have to go a mile underwater and then drill another three miles below that in order to hit oil tells us something about the direction of the oil industry. Extraction is more expensive, and it is going to be inherently more risky. And so that's part of the reason you never heard me say, "Drill, baby, drill." Because we can't drill our way out of the problem. It may be part of the mix as a bridge to a transition to new technologies and new energy sources. But we should be pretty modest in understanding that the easily accessible oil has already been sucked up out of he ground, and as we are moving forward the technology gets more complicated, the oil sources are more remote, and that means that there's probably going to end up being more risk. And we as a society are going to have to make some very serious determinations in terms of what risks are we willing to accept. And that's part of what the commission I think is going to have to look at. I will tell you, though, that understanding we need to grow, we're going to be consuming oil for our industries, for how people live in this country, we're going to have to start moving on this transition. That's why when I went to the Republican caucus just this week, I said to them, "Let's work together." You've got Lieberman and Kerry, previously were working with Lindsey Graham, even though Lindsey's not on the bill right now, coming up with a framework that has the potential to get bipartisan support, and says yes, we're still going to need oil production, but you know, we can see what's out there on the horizon, and it's a problem, if we don't start changing how we operate.

"Peak oil" has come to refer to the doomer belief that society will collapse because nothing can replace oil.
Obama didn't say anything like that.
Here is your own statement in this thread:

I already explained at least twice that he didn't say the words "Peak Oil". I am the author of the OP and that is how I interpreted his comments. If you don't believe it, fine with me. Move along to something else.

peak oil, peak food, etc, etc.
And I've had plenty of discussion with "peak oilers" and other doomers here on DU over the years.

Read through this 2006 thread and see the comments by some of us old-timers: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=58397&mesg_id=58422

A thread from 2008: Were these coal plants cancelled because of "peak coal"? Nope! See post #5 for the reason why: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x131211

Here are the real threats to civilization (and note the corrected link in post #17): http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x185354

words correctly if you know about Peak Oil.

Anyway, I believe we have reached the peak of global oil production and that we're going to have to deal with it.

Here's what's going to happen: we're going to cut back on fossil fuels for environmental reasons, and the peak oilers will say, "See! We were right! Oil production peaked and declined!". But it will be for above-ground reasons, not below-ground reasons.

The usual solutions to peak oil are deep sea drilling, tar sands, oil shale, coal-to-liguids, fission. We don't want to do those for environmental reasons.

Efficiency and renewables will allow us to avoid global warming, peak oil, peak uranium, and nuclear winter.

The only question is whether conservatives will let progressives accelerate those solutions into the marketplace before it is too late to prevent a devastating oil shock or, for that matter, devastating climate change.

This is the problem in a nutshell, if an oil shock occurs, let's say within the next 5 years, even if we started now to transition to fuel efficient or renewable sources, we would not have converted enough to prevent the effects of an oil shock entirely, we may cushion the fall though.

You first post is an offtopic response to a peak oil thread from 2006, when oil price per barrel was around 58 dollars, this year, so far, its 70 dollars per barrel, not a dramatic increase, true, but a far cry from 2008, when it spiked at over 90 dollars a barrel, and then the recession hit, and in 2009, demand dropped, lowering the price, but now its creeping up again. And the post you linked to is more about population than peak oil itself.

I don't know what you are talking about in your second paragraph, peak coal isn't mentioned in that thread, or in this one, until you mentioned it. I mean, its going to happen, but not for decades yet, if we want to continue to building coal plants.

As far as your third point, what's the difference between what you consider real and what is actually happening? The most honest assessment is that we will most likely face the consequences of peak oil, while at the same time suffer the affects of global climate change, a double whammy, as it were.

The first link is about sustainability, an issue which includes peak oil.

The second link shows that coal plants are being canceled for environmental reasons, if "peak oil" was a bigger problem than global warming we would have a massive coal-to-liquids program, instead we are trying to reduce both coal and oil usage because they create global warming.

The third link shows that what's actually happening in the real world is that nuclear weapons and global warming are recognized as much more serious and immediate problems than peak oil (and solving global warming will cause "peak oil demand" before "theoretical peak production" is reached). Here's what's actually happening in the real world:

1. Last month was "the largest gathering of international leaders in the U.S. in more than 60 years ... the next step in Obama's plan to rid the world of nuclear weapons eventually"
   
2. Last year Obama won the Nobel Prize for his efforts at nuclear disarmanent
   
3. In 2007 Al Gore and the IPCC won the Nobel for their work on Global Warming
   
4. Last year "a rather dramatic scene unfolded that surprised even several top leaders at the climate negotiations in Copenhagen. In a secret meeting between Chinese, Indian and Brazilian heads of state, the door swung open revealing President Obama, who hadn’t been invited but had arrived to crash the meeting. Several diplomats protested the intrusion, but Obama simply informed them he wouldn’t accept them negotiating in secret. He sat down and started talking. ... The most historic part of the talks, though, is the fact that heads of state engaged in direct negotiations around the same table, rather than having their bidding being done by lower-level diplomats before arriving for photo ops".
   
5. Despite the weak Copenhagen treaty, Copenhagen Failure Defied by $200 Billion in Green Investments ... “Country by country, state by state, regulations will continue to spur demand independent of what might happen in Copenhagen,” said Joe Muscat, director of clean technology at New York-based Ernst & Young LLP. Worldwide, 250 climate-change regulations were enacted from July 2008 to February, including 54 in the U.S. and 25 in China, Ernst & Young said in a Nov. 17 report. More than 30 U.S. states require utilities to include renewable energy in their power portfolios. ... A treaty “would certainly be helpful, but it is not going to stop capital from being put to work,” McDermott, managing partner of New York-based Greentech said. “Technological progress and the ability to scale and lower costs are surprising everybody in the industry.”
   

The U.S. Military thinks differently.

Just because one event overshadows another doesn't mean the other event will not be a problem in the near future, it would be foolhardy to think that.

but many feel we can pull off a soft landing and avert a crash if we act sooner rather than later.

Society will indeed collapse if we don't wake up, smell the coffee, and get off our lazy asses and act.

Clueless would work too, but bananas is just fine.

Here's the "too optimistic" graph:

He's saying we have to stop using fossil fuels because they are bad for the environment, not because of "peak oil":

If you can't interpret those words correctly, that is not my problem. I encourage you to think whatever you like about the very real peak oil phenomenon, which by the way has occured in EVERY SINGLE DEPLETED oil well in history. Which amount to tens of thousands of times. If you don't believe it, fine with me.

I did not get any sense whatsoever that Obama questions our ability to do deepwater extraction safely, without fouling vast amounts of oceans and shorelines.

The clear sense I get is that he believes there are regulatory things that can be done that will mean we can do deepwater extraction with no accidents, no harm, ever. He actually promised that.

Should I not be concerned about that?

will almost always be a gusher like this one. Since we cannot afford even one leak of this magnitude, this venue needs to be closed off. No more deep sea drilling, period. It's too costly in environmental terms.

I just get so tired of the hyperbole around Obama. He did not 'admit Peak Oil' at all. An honest headline would have made the speech sound better. Mealy mouthed crapola, which will pave the way for more drilling, which is still his position, as he said at length. More drilling and discrimination, until the drillers and discriminators are willing to stop freely, apparently.

He may have outlined the situation, but he NEVER used(i.e. "admitted) the term "peak oil"

didn't say the words "peak oil". Jeez, half the population calls you a kook if you say those words. The president stated the situation as if he had prefaced it with the words "We have reached the moment of Peak Oil.". I've been studying the situation with oil production daily for the past four years. No one here (with the exception of maybe one or two) knows more about this topic than I do and I know what he said.

Sorry, I do not remember who it was. I remember wondering whether he would bother reading it and if an honest address of Peak Oil, whether using that term or not, would ever be heard from a US president.

day one. Yawn.