Quote:
Originally Posted by qdmcg
what say you, jiggs
What do I really need to say? It's right in the interview. How is it different than any narrative presented right on this forum? It's really not.
Heck, I can "the Google" and find an endless array of "peak oil debunked" essays, on everything from abiotic theory to markets will fix all.
In this case, the man spends two sentences insisting there's plenty of light crude, and the rest of the Q&A assessing the reasons we MUST turn to alternatives. Odd. But more important, to his first point: Where is the data? How is he, a professor, correct and countless geologists and retired oilmen wrong?
A commenter under the Q&A put it best... there's "never been more...:
... If you believe the national oil companies. They won't allow third-party verification of their reserves, so those reserves could just as well be marketing spin as honest assessments. If you realize they have incentives to fudge the numbers, and look at their stated reserves history, it would be silly to take their word for it. But Prof. Gorelick seems to be doing just that.
I'm familiar with Gorelick, though. He debated Amos Nur at Stanford in 05 or 06, and really sounded more like an attorney than a geologist. He's classic denial, in that he insists demand dictates supply. He also insists the U.S. only peaked in 1971 because bigger tankers made it cheaper to get oil elsewhere. This notion was crushed long ago, as the reality is the reverse was true. The U.S. built a fleet of huge30 tankers because it knew it had to increase imports due to peak.
He sees a transfer over to ever-heavier, dirtier, more expensive oil as a "blur." Most everyone else sees is as a process that will lead to severe civil dislocation and upheaval.
At the end of the day, however, when dealing with someone like Gorelick, you need only apply critical analysis and ask "show me your data?" Where is the oil people like Gorelick are alluding to? In what amount? Up against what rate of consumption, as he sees it? If he can't point to it, and must pretend the transition to alternatives will be seamless, like so many here, what is the EROEI he sees going forward for these alternatives?
Because the USGS, the IEA, the Join Chiefs, the U.S. Dept. of Energy, Lloyds of London, Oxford U., Total Oil of France, the German and British governments and endless petrol geologists seem to have very different figures, and a far more imminent scenario than anyone in denial is willing to acknowledge.
Last edited by JiggsCasey; 11-05-2010 at 02:50 AM.