The Biggest Aviation Question: Fuel Supply

[Nomorecrap]

It is interesting reading the constant topics here on D&G: QF Corporate Greed, Industrial Issues, Bilateral Air Access rights, Aviation security.

Nobody seems to be talking about the biggest challenge to the continued existence of aviation, and in many respects the industrialised world and it's fundamental basis for economic growth : Oil Supply.

Perhaps it is because the paradigm shift that will be forced upon the 'developed' world over the next 10-20 years is too hard to acknowledge? Or that we all realise a political solution is by definition unachieveable by nature of the likelihood of governments willingly committing political suicide!

Initially of course the decrease in production of oil will be managed by our current supply/demand economics, until later down the track the integrity or relevance of it's value is dispatched all together. So, in the short to medium term the demand in air travel / air support will dramatically fall.

Lets face it - 90% or more of current air travel is arbitrary. For example if the cost of flying from Sydney to London went from about $1800-2000 to $6000-10000 in the next 3 years or so what will the demand be?

In an uncertain oil supply environment in geopolitical terms, many governments who rely on imports of oil (fortunately Australia is not one of them - yet) may well be stockpiliing highly refined oils like kerosense for military reasons - defending their own oil supply fields.

Another thing. Private vehicles can be converted to LPG in Australia readily now, and this would be driven by economics to start with (LPG reserves in AUS are plentiful, even though currently 80% is made as a by-product of oil refining). But what of alternative fuels for aviation? BIO-Diesel is one possibilty - but productions costs are high.

It is more likely that the arbitrary nature of most travel will reduce demand as costs rise first.

Cheap oil has effectively driven the growth in Air travel, and most of the economy. This is about to change, and the future for aviation is going to be very different.

Most of what we discuss here as important issues now, seem to me to be going to totally irrelevant in a relatively short time.

I am happy to debate the issues - but if you respond to me as being a scaremongerer, then you are part of the problem. My only response to that will be now: Do your research.

[Nomorecrap]

Not at all.

I just know how debates here can often get bogged down in attacking the messenger, rather than the issue.

[Obiwan]

Actually this has been debated before here. There were some interesting posts on hydrogen powered aircraft, diesel/bio diesel, the future after 100LL etc. Do a search.

[Nomorecrap]

Yes,
there has been debate - but the point missed.

Aviation is in fact THE most vulnerable form of oil useage to the post-peak economics/supply problem.

There is no other viable propulsion system - and certainly not within the next few years when the reality of Production/Consumption ratios will kick in.

My own prediction is that we are now at, or have just passed the pinnacle of commercial Aviation activity in the world. Why? Well, I don't think too many would argue that much of the recent growth has been on the back of LCC's 'stimulating' unneeded discretionary travel. LCC rely on fuel hedging to predict costs and stay (close to) profitable. Assuming fuel costs currently stand at 40-50% of costs for an LCC, if your $50US barrell of crude is costing you $100 by the end of this year, and if the oil traders get nervous, $200 by the end of next year, just how sustainable is a business that relies on discretionary travel?

Ironically, the mediium term survival/extension of commerical aviation may just depend on this very realisation/acceptance that oil is TOO cheap and has been for too long. It is not being given the real value it's scarcity might suggest by our economy. Take a look at the cars being driven around - 4WD to pick up kids from school!? Madness.

The mindset of the consumer-capitalist society can not save itself, not even its "intellectual" classes or green leadership give any sign that this society has the wit or the will to even think about the basic situation we are in.

[Point0Five]

Interesting topic. As I understand it, the present rise in fuel costs (across all forms) is due to the fact that OPEC cannot control price through production rates as they are presently opperating at maximum output.

Interesting times.

[Chimbu chuckles]

You light find this website interesting. Perhaps the Saudis don't have as much of the world supply as we are being lead to believe.

potential world oil resources (http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/oil/3unconventional.html)

If we really were getting that close to peak oil production I tend to think the price of a barrel would be higher now than it was in the 70s, in inflation corrected dollars...it isn't by about $20/barrel..40 odd %.

I find it easier to accept that current high prices are driven by futures traders and market manipulation.

Chuck.

[Ultralights]

its simple economics, as the supply dwindles, the cost will skyrocket, and there will be no shortage of new technology emerging to replace it. but only when the price becomes a lot more expensive....

i not worried.

[PPRuNe Towers]

Well, Ultralight has got the supply side economics nailed. The theory goes that as price goes up new technology is driven to bring on sources that have now become cost effective - Canadian oil shales, bio fuels, warp drives - that sort of thing.

However, this ignores one consistent theme on this forum - no suit will ever make a career increasing costs or spending today what can be deferred until they are up another rung on the greasy pole. Thus immense hysterisis - lag if you like - in the theory which will blight us as aviators for half a career.

Chimbu points out the speculative 'spiking' of futures markets. Spot on but the underlying price is only going one way. The comparison elsewhere to the 70's price is unfortunately a red herring with demand from China and India soaring. 2004 marked the year that China officially became unable to feed itself - the swing to industrial/service economy achieved, again, in half a pilot's career.

National and strategic reserves have been proven as a mockery for short term political gain. A suit is a suit is a suit - check out the last two years in the US where they've been used up as a price buffer for Joe Sixpack even when the military are rather busy around the World. Something supporting nomorecrap's thesis to the letter.

The next piece of the jigsaw is again taken directly from threads on this forum. Whether phrased as discretionary travel or thong wearers, oil is very cheap if those folks are flying and it's very obvious it is viewed in an entirely different way from the 'elitist' past.

So where's the problem? Well, in addition to market price rises, fuel's now a very soft and attractive target for taxes suitably wrapped in green promises. We've had generations of goverment support in form of little or no tax on airline fuel in the guise of national or nationalistic economic development. That argument lies shattered in the world of lo cost - flying is just a commodity now. Airport and passenger taxes appear for what they are and draw ever more protest - fuel is the perfect target to up revenues with a wonderful save the planet message especially in parts of the world with extreme congestion and perceived poor quality of life as a result.

So?

Rocky road due to supply not enough.

Economies growing so even more not enough.

Developing world has the same thirst as us for 4 wheels and they're getting it. One major, and I mean major, European car maker is now building more cars in China than Europe. The Chinese built cars are not for Western markets.

Lag in R+D and new supplies due to modern bottom line management and pollie's short term survivalism. Add to that oil companies, producing nations and cartels finding it very difficult to act against their own short and medium interests and income.

Tempting source of totally unexploited tax revenue with a wonderful excuse over much of the developed world.

Short/ medium term - i.e a good chunk of a career, problems for us initially masked by a major shortage of experienced pilots worldwide. I've wiped the flight sim of my lad's computer and hidden the aviation mags with the dirty ones. He'll still find them but I want professional aviation consigned to the dark recesses of his mind.

Would you guys shoot me down in flames? Please?

Regards
Rob

Personal note: My head says we should follow the American lead and use the stuff like there's no tomorrow forcing the next generation of fuel and energy technology. Brutal economic change through the free market. Sadly I think I may have chosen a career path with a bit of a Darwinian shallow end to it. Still can always retrain as a lamplighter, maybe a sedan chair skipper, ostler, ummm, wheeltapper and shunter, whiffletree balancer, candle snuffer. Oh bugger it.......

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Australia alone has another 40 basins to explore, I think the mark is 26 that are very interesting(read world standard).The problem is they are under a lot of water. Chimbu (as always:) ) is very correct. Majority if this I suspect is market manipulation by the speculators.

As fuels become more expensive, more alternatives become viable. Note what is currently the case with wind energy,these fools are trying to bring technology on line before it is economically viable. Their survival is dependant on the Feds enforcing a mandated 40% generation supply by renewable resources...shame hydro is taking all the glory AND the dollars:E

Back to the oil debate. Just because the last drop hasn't been discovered doesn't mean we shouldn't be searching for more economically viable alternatives. NOMORECRAP Oz gas reserves are in the order of 200YEARS of supply. It is currently not viable to convert gas to condensate. My Dad makes his own diesel for just on 25cpl using used cooking oil. At the moment it is a waste product but imagine the escalation in price if there is more demand for it. JETA1 will by more viable than AVGAS. The Feds will have to bite the bullet and allow MOGAS to be used. This will force serious engine modification, indeed it may well finally allow modern ECU fitment to current machinery.

My bet is on Diesel/JetA1 recip engines. Ethanol blends and Mogas in current technology engines. (water cooled ECU and electronic ignition) Eventually, in another 100 years as hydrocarbon based fuels become too expensive we will be using water powered fuel cells and maybe high tech solar panel powered electric aircraft. International travel will be by hypersonic scram jets.

By the way, hydrocarbons and I do mean heavy crude hydrocarbons are a geological process not a biological process. How do you explain the atmosphere of Titan otherwise? When I was at school crude was supposed to be gone by the late eighties and the world was going to freeze. We do not know enough, even yet.

You are correct though, this debate is needed now and not in another thirty years. With regard to cheap jet travel? Current LCC method seems to finally use that economic advantage that jet travel had all along. Fuel useage per seat mile. Jets have been more economical than road transport since the invention of the 747 in the sixties. Who knows what may happen to JETA1 production over the next thirty years or so. Aviation will still be THE most economical way of using that resource for travel.

[Jelli Been]

It's all moot.

The most pressing issue facing aviation is where to land once sea levels rise. More than a few major paddocks will be under water before we run low on oil.

ABC Four Corners (http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2005/s1325819.htm) last week brought to our screens the story of global dimming, an effect highlighted by the absence of contrails over continental USA in the three days post September 11 2001. Global dimming has been artificially keeping a lid on global warming, and as the program transcript (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml) states, "by about twenty thirty we could have a global warming of exceeding two degrees, and at that point it's believed the Greenland ice sheet would start to melt in a way that you wouldn't be able to stop it once it started it, it would melt. Take a long time to melt but ultimately it would lead to a sea level rise of seven or eight metres."

2030 ... not so far away folks.

[Nomorecrap]

Some excellent points all round (I am pleasantly surprised).

Jelli Been - I saw the 4C/Panorama report too. V Interesting data for 12/13/14Sep01 when the jets were grounded. 2030 is indeed close, but not close enough in the political sense unfortunately. Political cycles and business cycles do not look that far ahead - that is probably humanity's biggest achilles heel - especially if you have kids and want a future for them. (I often wonder if any politicians 'ever' think about their own family legacy!).

I fear that Global Dimming will be embraced as quickly/slowly as Global Warming, and the response will be just as effective/useless. The Kyoto protocol, despite it's small targets, was more important for it's symbolic agreement - however with the US and China ignoring it, both the true effectiveness and the symbolic usefullness are both lost - again: Political Cycles.

Excise (tax) on motor fuel is around 45-50% in Australia - except LPG. However our current government has a policy of introducing this in 2011 starting at 2.5c/l and escalating to 12.5c/l in 2015 - how farsighted of them! I can see arguments either way about oil excsie being a good or bad tax - but I think Government by their nature will reach a pragmatic point where excise will be reduced/abolished in the interest of prolonging economic growth stimulus when the crudel price gets high enough.

Australia is a net importer of Crude in Australia, but only by around 6-7% - with higher use of LPG for private motor vehicle use we could be self sufficent, with reserves at current useage rates for 15-25 years , if we still have an Air Force (and fuel) to defend it! Current consumption in Australia is 860,000 barrels per day (around 1% of world useage).Proved reserves are 4.5 billion Barrels - so around 14 years supply on current useage.

The point about LPG reserves in Australia - they are large, but make up only 18% of Australias current energy useage compared to 24% of the world. Gas is also subject to the peak (Bell curve), but probably about 15-20 years after oil, based on current useage, which obviously will escalate after Oil peaks. Gas is usually only discovered as a result of Oil exploration - 20% of production is from under pressure reseves - 80% is as a result of Oil refining (by product - thats the P in LPG).

The new technolgies argument is often made to counter the peak oil argument as some sort of white knight solution. Will they be online in 5-10 years when the short term speculative nature of spot oil trading makes oil too expensive? For some transport technoligies like private motor vehicles, possibly. But there is nothing for aviation that is viable - hydrogen fuel cells are pipe dreams - the energy required to produce them is massive. It is a similar argument to the shale oil / oil sands argument - whilst to some extent it is true that as the oil price increases these oil reserves become 'viable', one has to look at the true energy cost of extracting the oil. Oil sands, such as found in the Alberta prairie, are 'steamed out. The extraction cost using todays energy cost is around $13CAD per barrell, compared to $1.50CAD for extraction from the largest oil field in Saudi - Ghawar. But as the oil price increases the extraction costs also increases - and then distribution increases, until you get back to being uneconomic again.

Behavioural change will be the hardest - especially when you have a country like the US using 26% of the worlds oil production/extraction for only 3% of the worlds population - and growing.

[7gcbc]

QUOTE:

"Behavioural change will be the hardest - especially when you have a country like the US using 26% of the worlds oil production/extraction for only 3% of the worlds population - and growing."


Indeed it is, you may have noticed a charm offensive by the Bush Administration in the last few months, a whistle stop, Cheerful, Gift and flowers bearing tour of the major European nations.

[in as much as Rice can "crack a smile" ]

Why was this ? after all the Bush Administration since 2001 was agressively undermining the UN, the EU and most other international organisations that had the arrogance to question US Policy ?

Kyoto was not ratified by the US nor Australia, so the other member states went ahead and ratified it anyway.

Thats what happens in diplomatic arenas when you take your ball and say you don't want to play anymore, the other kids get another ball and the game continues WITHOUT you and you can no longer influence the result.

There are huge ramifications for this country and others who have not agreed to Kyoto, Little Jonnie's response is that we will meet the emission targets by our own methods, presumeably this means cutting down on emissions ? For an economy based on non stustainable "we dig stuff up and ship it out" (a senior european economists words, not mine), it hardly seems achievable ?

Little Jonnie has also missed the key point, R&D, Member states that have ratified Kyoto will share the technology and create synergies across the technological advances they will make in discovering methods and techniques to reduce emissions and ensure sustainable energy, fuel, and consumption streams.

where will we be ? We'll pay through the nose for this, not only in the loss of unsustainable industries, but also because Australia is an incredibly fragile and vulnerable environment.

I took a light single out of parafield a few years ago and flew a short bit up the coast towards the salt pans NNW of ADL.

I did not like what I saw.

Willindilly is also concerning, I don't think that new extension on warragamba has ever seen water ?

Nomorecrap,

I agree , without China and the US working towards Kyoto, in particular the SE asian belt (re the global Dimming programme), I think we're stuffed.

Thing is, in the "west" it will certainly impact AUS first, no doubt about that, sadly not before most of the sub-saharan belt of countries have gone through another three or four cycles of famine and are wiped out.

A pleasant and honorable mantle to hand to our children.

[Nomorecrap]

The 1970's oil crisis - a reading of history suggests there were 2 main causes.

1. As predicted using the same theory as applies to the current Peak Oil theory, 'production' in the US peaked around 1970-73, and demand exceeded supply. The US was forced to import from it's overseas suppliers - at the time mainly Arab countries.....

2. The Arab/Israeli war was in full swing and the Arab countries boycotted supply to the Us because of it's support for Israel in attacking Egypt.

So, in some ways eerly similar to today - except: there is no alternative supply now.

The geo-political environment is just as bad however - mainly the doing of the US with it's invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan (irrespective of whether you consider it right or wrong) and it's sabre rattling over Iran. Political pressure against the house of Faud in SA is growing as SA continues to export to the US in the face of this highly agressive doctrine in the ME by Bush - perhaps the US strategy is a foothold in the remaining fields at any cost? To keep the American dream ticking over for another 20 years? If so, it would be very shortsighted and just a postponement to the end of the party if no alternative strategies/technologies are developed.

A close look at the composition of the US executive however, and their almost complete nexus to the oil industry does make it easy to wonder.

BTW: The peak oil debate has actually made it in to the 'mainstream' political arena very recently, both here in Australia and in the US Congress. Just this weekend the debate over methanol production was reignited along these lines.

http://www.energybulletin.net/4733.html
http://www.energybulletin.net/4654.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200503/s1331848.htm

[Duff Man]

> perhaps the US strategy is a foothold in the remaining fields at any cost

Well, yes. As unpalatable as the Iraq invasion was, at least the US recognises the medium term responsibility of a sole-superpower-democracy is to provide security to the remaining reserves. The human cost of middle east control is (considered) negligable compared with the consequences of an unstabilised oil supply on the far side of peak supply. East Timor is a local version of the same story.

Now pass me a bucket :yuk: and let me get off this world.

But the lag in R&D you mention, how far off do you reckon non-oil aircraft propulsion systems are? I think all engine manufacturers see the writing on the wall... their websites boast of R&D in this area... but the crucial question is will the technology arrive in time before a radical reshaping of aviation caused by an oil squeeze? (Roll on Lathamesque cliches...)

[7gcbc]

Whilst stabilising the region is up for debate, the economic cost to the US us just staggering, The nexus nomorecrap speaks of is quite hard to ignore, and whilst the human cost as you say may be negligible, the show ain't over till the fat lady sings. It only takes one martyr with a portable nuke, then its game over.

As a conservative estimate , it will be approximately 4-5 decades before it is safe for Americans to travel to these middle eastern countries., not withstanding the social and political impacts, is the US still going to be a power then ? If the Bell Curve principle is to be applied, then she's already in decline, her policy is plainly flawed and one-way, an acceptable machivellian foreign policy solution if one remains Top Dog, but what is China going to have to say about it ?

besides, its large industrials and domestic requirements (both developing and developed countries) that are the key culprits in global warming,(what the hell do we need a 4.6 ltr gas guzzling 4X4 around town for ?) the lack of safe secure reliable nuclear power for developing countries forces them to use fossil fuels, and we in the west or rather those boys on pensylvania avenue have made us all nervous about allowing the developing world a clean and safe nuclear programme.[itself a finite resource, albeit a longer term one]

India and China are supreme culprits in pollution of the SE Asian hemisphere.

I personally see no reason why the Iranians should not have a domestic nuclear programme. Pressuring them as US policy is doing is just forcing them away from the normal diplomatic discourse.

Why are the Iraqi opposition called Insurgents and not Terrorists ?

Because at some point in the future, there will be dialogue, and you can't have dialogue with terrorists.

a flawed policy.

[Uncommon Sense]

A few weeks ago, the price of oil ratcheted above fifty-five dollars a barrel, which is about twenty dollars a barrel more than a year ago. The next day, the oil story was buried on page six of the New York Times business section. Apparently, the price of oil is not considered significant news, even when it goes up five bucks a barrel in the span of ten days. That same day, the stock market shot up more than a hundred points because, CNN said, government data showed no signs of inflation. Note to clueless nation: Call planet Earth.

Carl Jung, one of the fathers of psychology, famously remarked that "people cannot stand too much reality." What you're about to read may challenge your assumptions about the kind of world we live in, and especially the kind of world into which events are propelling us. We are in for a rough ride through uncharted territory.

It has been very hard for Americans -- lost in dark raptures of nonstop infotainment, recreational shopping and compulsive motoring -- to make sense of the gathering forces that will fundamentally alter the terms of everyday life in our technological society. Even after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, America is still sleepwalking into the future. I call this coming time the Long Emergency. Read More... (http://www.countercurrents.org/po-kunster280305.htm)

[Duff Man]

Having just read the full essay introduced by Uncommon Sense I must say that, should his prophesy come to fruition (and what a bad choice of word "fruition" is in this context), it isn't a matter of what we can do to avoid disaster to aviation, rather a a matter of what we can do to save our collective arses.
there may be no long-range travel or transport of goods at all a few decades from now. The commercial aviation industry, already on its knees financially, is likely to vanish. The sheer cost of maintaining gigantic airports may not justify the operation of a much-reduced air-travel fleet. Railroads are far more energy efficient than cars, trucks or airplanes, and they can be run on anything from wood to electricity. The rail-bed infrastructure is also far more economical to maintain than our highway network.

The writing is, quite simply, on the wall. Kids: learn to garden. Adults: don't have kids.

[Life as a journey]

For as long as there have been records, people have been spooking each other with tales of pending doom.

We're still here.

[Uncommon Sense]

LAAJ:

Nicely argued.

The easiest solution is indeed denial.

[Life as a journey]

The idea of denial suggests an underlying truth to assertions made, which appear to be that civilization is coming to a close.

Aircraft will not fly; too expensive.

Trading between nations will grind to a halt; no transportation.

Our interlinked world will revert to isolated communities that will only survive by bonding together in mutual understanding that "this is it, so let's all pull together now and raise those crops."

I'm sorry, but the premise is false. Yet because I'm not about to spend hours explaining why I think that, I'm in denial.

Ok......but think about this. There have been too many wasted lives worrying about a future of doom that doesn't eventually transpire and then guess what?

It's too late to start building your life. You're forty, or older, and chicks don't dig you anymore, you have no money in the bank, no career and no hope for financial independence. You become sour, and because you're shut out, perhaps drag others down into the murk you wallow in.

Pardon me, but I'd encourage the younger ones reading this post not to pursue the more rabid links, and to go nowhere near www.elliottwave.com or other such merchants of ruination.

Enjoy your life. It's really that simple.

[Uncommon Sense]

It's too late to start building your life. You're forty, or older, and chicks don't dig you anymore, you have no money in the bank, no career and no hope for financial independence.

Damn!

At least I have financial independence (FOR NOW) and hope - oh well, 2 out of 6 aint bad (?)

Life is for living - some would just like to see it be for living beyond their own lifetimes - maybe for their kids sake.

It is a pity you can not take the time to explain wjy the premise if false - I hope you are right - but nothing you have said convinces me.

[7gcbc]

Life as a Journey,

"The idea of denial suggests an underlying truth to assertions made, which appear to be that civilization is coming to a close"

I like your nome de plume, kind of my sentiments also it is a journey, however when you speak of civilisation coming to a close, and when I refer to and tacitly agree with Uncommon Sense, we're not talking doom and gloom of civilisation as a whole, we're talking about the demise of western economies and their basis of productivity on a finite resource, Its plain to see that the US foreign policy is a short term punt (over the course of human history the 20th century zenith of western supremacy is well, 1/20th....) small stuff , a blip, hardly the end times.

However, That affects us , and more importantly will affect our children, as the resources we now use should and must be put to a sustainable plan forward, thing is, Money talks and BS walks, and no one currently in a position of power has the guts to commit what is essentially political suicide for a "prospective" statue some hundred years hence.


As an analyst in the financial services industry, I have no tips, no magic solution, no panacea, but I do see elliotwave for what it is, a money making website, and if I had one piece of advice for younger players (i'm not forty myself) , it is as you say , to enjoy the journey because life is so short, but what will be there when they end their journey, if we make a mess that we won't be around to clean up.

what use is 60 gazillion in shares, if you can't get clean water or air ?


We in OZ are linked by policy, culture and finances to the US, our quality of life (if you can call it that) has been based over the last 4 decades on a position of economic supremacy based on diggin' black stuff outta the ground, when that ends, we had better have made alternate arrangements.

If you have it "made" then fair play to you, it is an enviable position to be in, however how many young ATPLs here with the ink barely dry on their licence will survive if the airline industry takes a few more successive punches ?

Doom and Gloom is one thing, concern about our childrens' future is another.

[Ultralights]

i remember when i got my first car, a v8 powered rambler! that the worlds current oil supply will be gone by 2000! hmmmm Global economics will not let aviation die! goverments will continue to prop up airlines, as the cost to their economies will be greater if they fail, and import/exports markets are cut off!

as for rail! the world is 75% WATER! and unless trains learn to float! air is the fastest and cheapest way to move goods over huge distances fast!

and society, and governments will demand newer technologies as the cost of their goods and travel skyrocket due to increasing oil prices.
is there any reason why a turbine engine cant run on ethanol? how much development would be required? to make use of this renewable fuel resource???

necessity is the mother of all invention!!
just look at WWII no one in 1938 would belive that by 1945 aircraft would be powered by Jet engines and travel near the speed of sound! the US went into WWII with cloth and timber bi-planes!

[Nomorecrap]

Ultralights,

Global economics is essentially built on cheap oil isn't it? If it ceases to exist in any familiar guise, global economics can not 'save' aviation - aviation will be an early casualty of the global economic model - by it's very nature. Quite simply - the cost of keeping those aircraft in the sky will outweigh any commerical benefit - no?

Governments will probably 'prop up' airlines, as they do now, but as a political measure at the outset to keep alive dependant industries like tourism - but only to a point. Only to an 'economic' point. The big question really is what is that point?

I disagree with your statement about rail - it is by far the most efficent transport system in terms of energy use, and can be powered by almost any type of common energy. True, rail over vast expanses of water is not practical where existing tunnels (like between UK and EUR) have not already been built. But where would this type of long distance overwater rail transport really be required anyway? Markets would no longer be 'global' as such.

Which makes me wonder about your statement about air travel being 'fast' and 'cheap' over 'long distances' - well, the basis for this whole argument is that oil is NO LONGER cheap. The long distance is not of relevance with a contracting market - therefore the speed becomes irrelevant.

'Society and Government will demand newer technologies'. Yes they will - and they have been for some time! Meanwhile alternative technolgy R&D is essentially controlled by the oil companies at present. To some extent what you say, if I interpret this statement correctly, is that the high cost of oil will make some of these other technolgies viable. Probably. But much of the argument being made is that the lead times required, and the infrastructure required means it should have started 15 years ago - not in another five years.

Biomass Fuels - A calculation I read recently showed that to replace the current oil consumption in the US alone using biomass fuels would require a culitvation area the size of Africa. I don't think Ethanol is the saviour!

Frankly, I hope I am completely wrong and all the scientific data I read from BP, Shell, Amoco and the AEC is wrong - and that those who pronounce 'scaremongerer' loudly are right.

[numbskull]

The scaremongering is a bit over the top!! Cars will convert to electric as the price of fuel soars.It has already started.

Planes can run for some time on the remaining fuel oil reserves(assuming they don't find any more-which I'm sure they will as it becomes more lucrative!!).

I'm sure gas turbine engines can be converted to run on some version of biodiesel.

Air travel will get more expensive as it is ridiculously cheap to fly at the moment. Governments will eventually get sick of supporting or bailing out the inefficient airlines and air fares will go up once this happens.

Maybe a new technology will come to the fore in the next 20 years that no one has even foreseen(ie computers and internet)

maybe someone will invent a teleporter and all the redundant pilots can be trained as space shuttle drivers.

The world will still turn even if there are a few less aircraft zooming through the atmosphere. You never know, It may even be a good thing as far as fresh air and less greenhouse gasses go. Don't be frightened of change.Nothing ever stay the same for long- especially in the airline industry!!!1

[Nomorecrap]

Is just facing up to the reality that oil is a finite resource 'scaremongering'?

From todays press:

"Govt should listen to OPEC, say Greens
Tuesday, 29 March 2005, 6:06 pm
Press Release: Green Party

Govt should listen to OPEC, say Greens
Energy Minister Trevor Mallard confirmed in the House today that he hadn’t heard the latest OPEC news when he claimed last week that Peak Oil is still thirty years away.

OPEC producers said on 16 March that they are already pumping as fast as they can, with the Qatari Oil Minister saying, “OPEC has done all it can do.” The US Department of Energy, on whose forecasts the Government generally relies, said Saudi Arabia, the only OPEC country believed to have excess capacity, is already pumping at 90 per cent of the maximum possible rate. A trader on the New York Mercantile Exchange subsequently took out a futures option to buy oil at US$100 a barrel in June. "
Source: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0503/S00543.htm

[Dibble&Grub]

There are repeated mentions of how expensive air travel is (in terms of fuel used). However these comments somewhat miss the mark - which is:

Take a medium size family car :

10 kms / Litre nominal fuel consumption.

Take a modern jet twin (say B777) :

8000 kgs / hr fuel consumption =

9600 liters / hour

But it does 910 kms in an hour (490 x 1.85)

So that is (9600/910) 10.55 liters / km =
0.095 kms / litre. But it carries 300 people =

28.4 people kms/litre

Doing the same for the car - it has to carry 2.8 people to make the same numbers.

Now we can argue all night about cars carrying 3-5 people and B777s full to the hat racks - but the point, I think, is clear.

What is more interesting is to think about the conversion from petrol/oil based fuels to electricity (disregarding a storage medium and energy density for the moment - if only we could - sigh!)

I don't have the time right now to put the numbers down (work calls) - perhaps someone else can. Here are some vital stats needed :

1 Litre of petrol / Jet A1 = 8.6 - 9.2KWh
1 AA battery (rechargeable) = 3Wh
1 large car battery (50Ah) = 660Wh

Conversion efficiencies :

ICE (interal combustion engine) - 30-35%
High Bypass Jet - 45-55%
Electric Motor - 80-95%

[Nomorecrap]

Further....

Source: NZ Herald / REUTERS (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=62&ObjectID=10118153)

Oil: Price surges US$2 on 'super-spike' prediction

01.04.05 8.40am


LONDON - Oil hurtled back up to US$56 a barrel on Thursday as Goldman Sachs bank, the biggest trader of energy derivatives, said prices could ultimately surge all the way above US$100.

The Goldman Sachs report strengthened gains driven by a fall in US petrol stocks and fresh buying from investment funds as the dollar weakened.

US light crude jumped US$2.11, or 3.9 per cent, to a high of US$56.10 a barrel, within US$1.50 of a US$57.60 record high struck on March 17........ read more.. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=62&ObjectID=10118153)

[Wirraway]

Fri "The Australian"

Discount fares rising as soaring oil prices hit carriers, says bureau
Steve Creedy
April 01, 2005

RISING oil prices are starting to affect discount air fares, with one official government measure showing a 26 per cent jump between July and February.

The Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics (BTRE) domestic air fare index indicates average discount air fares have been rising gradually since hitting a low last July after the launch of Jetstar services.

A February index for best return discount air fares, compiled using the Sabre reservations system, showed ticket prices rose more than 26 per cent. But a similar index using the internet – which gives a better indication of the impact on average prices of ticket availability, the bureau says – recorded an 11.8 per cent rise.

Prices are still lower than the same time in 2004, when air fares were trending downwards, and less than two-thirds of the average price in November 2000.

Click here for FULL story (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12715424%255E23349,00.html)

============================================

[Woomera]

The Soothsayers of Doom should consider that 30 years ago Lockheed developed a viable concept hydrogen powered aircraft of 300 plus seats.

The project didn't proceed as the cost of producing the hydrogen significantly exceeded the then price of oil at US$7.00 per barrel! The project was finally shelved in 1998 when the price of oil dropped to US$10 per barrel.

My guess the Skunk Works may well be dusting off the file again.

Woomera

[Nomorecrap]

Running on Empty - Sydney Morning Herald - 2 Apr 2005 (http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Running-on-empty/2005/04/01/1112302233942.html)

[ROKAPE]

Latest estimates from financial institutes in the 'states' are for prices to go as high as $US105 per barrel , needless to say that will be a disaster for aviation. However, judging by the numbers of views of this thread, nobody really gives a toss? (1728 vs 16800 for ‘QF Tech crew F/A altercation cancels flight’) :confused:

[Duff Man]

Life as a journey, Ultralights, numbskull:
The SMH story posted by Nomorecrap addresses your dismissals fairly well. Take the time to read it.
The industry journal Oil & Gas Journal says a series of oil shocks could unfold - we may be in one now - with more to come in 2010 and 2015. After surviving the oil shock of the 1970s, consumers in the richer nations became insensitive to doomsday scenarios. Consumption kept rising but production kept pace. The honeymoon appears to be over. In 2003, for the first time since the 1920s, no oilfield of 500 million barrels a day or more was discovered anywhere. For every four barrels of oil we consume, only one new barrel is found. ... in 2003, $8 billion was spent on exploration which found oil worth only $4 billion.

As for market forces sorting things out...
At the Centre for International Economics in Canberra, such hard choices are no bad thing. "To an economist, high prices are the solution to the problem. As long as we let markets work correctly, we'll get through this in the cheapest possible way," says the executive-director, Andrew Stoeckel. However, to Victorian Liberal Senator Tsebin Tchen, that sounds like an economic rationalist's version of Marie Antoinette's "let them eat cake". "That's how revolutions happen. It's a very painful and risky way of doing it," he says.

[Nomorecrap]

Duff Man,

Even the excerpt from that article was subtley but signnificantly wrong due typo:

for the first time since the 1920s, no oilfield of 500 million barrels a day or more was discovered anywhere

What they should have said was 500 million barrels TOTAL - i.e. for the life of the field. Bear in mind that is less than one week supply for the world.

The best any field in the world currently produces in the world is Ghawar - it only produces 4 million barrels per day, and declining - and it dwarfs any other extraction field.

[Uncommon Sense]

Related: If you want to check fuels prices in your area, and fill up cheap (including those of us with LPG), check this website:

http://motormouth.com.au/pricesearch.aspx

Does not help with AVTUR/AVGAS unfortunately.

[Nomorecrap]

Rokape,

Like you infer, I too am still amazed the excited titilation on the antics with the old and well worn "FA and/or gay bashing" leanings of this website warrant more attention than the possible future extinction of the very careers of our Professional Pilot ranks!

It just seems to reinforce my own belief that a decent swag of contributors to this D&G are neither pilots nor professional - those who are, will usually get sledged or drowned out by the background noise.

Bit like the principle of 'reality' TV, or even mainstream politics - all fluff and little substance!

It seems to me this subject will be the dominant one across the developed world within the next 12 months - especially in Commerical Aviation and tourist dependant states/nations.

All this despite the statements of the US Commander-in-Thief, we see that the American 'lifestyle' will indeed be 'negotiable' - after all, the cost of sustaining it has already reached close to $60US/bl - doubled in the last 18 months. Not negotiable?

I don't think so.

Some of the majors, or legacy carriers, in the US must have around 3-6 months before we hear that even Chap 11 will not keep them running - when even OPEC is scared the party is well and truly over. (Here come the cut conditions for staff argument again!)

http://www.cavalierdaily.com/CVArticle.asp?ID=22974&pid=1281

[Duff Man]

From yesterday's SMH letters (http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2005/04/03/1112489344747.html)

Lack of planning is the real tragedy of oil crisis
Why are we so incapable of planning for the long-term future ("Running on empty", Herald, April 2-3)?

I learnt about what we now call peak oil and climate change in high school about 25 years ago. We were told that oil is a finite resource, expected to peak soon after 2000. Alternatives were necessary, including more energy-efficient transport. Oil could be made from coal, which was much more abundant, but the added release of carbon dioxide could potentially warm the globe (then a theory). Alternatives to coal were also required.

A quarter of a century later I live in north-west Sydney, waiting in vain for the long-overdue north-west railway, which would make my journey to work in the city less oil-dependent. And there is still no affordable means to power my house other than electricity from coal.

How can Sydney remain a global city without an energy-efficient mass transport system at its core? Why is Australia so miserly in investing in alternative energy research? These are not new problems. Why are they being put off for a last-minute panic?

Bruce Tabor Stanhope Gardens

Hey, here's an idea: with the price of oil soaring as a result of increased demand and reserves running out, let's shut down our manufacturing industries and lock the Australian economy and Australians' standard of living in to dependence on shipping cheaply huge quantities of raw materials to economies that depend on continued cheap oil such as the US and China and on industries such as tourism that rely on cheap air travel.

Oh, you don't think it's a good idea, either?

Gordon Drennan Burton (SA)

Reading the predictions about oil makes building yet another new motorway for Sydney seem even more shortsighted. Surely the Government should start addressing the problem of transporting people rather than the symptom of congested roads?

Neville Brown Croydon

[Nomorecrap]

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40902000/jpg/_40902863_planes203_pa.jpg
Airline Profits hit by Oil Price
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4411169.stm

Airlines face $5.5B Loss
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7384822/

Worlds First(?) Gas Powered Truck
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200504/s1338774.htm

[Life as a journey]

NMC, you might be right about a pending crisis.

Then again you might not be.

I tend to think you aren't right, which is not an accident of mine.

Nor is it a position I've stumbled on through a lack of widespread reading (eclectic?) or industry-specific awareness (erudite?).

It doesn't follow that I am not a pilot or that I'm not professional, which is what you just said.

Keep writing, friend.

I'm reading everything I can, as are many others, most of whom are far more professional than me.

But I, like many others, tend to stop reading when the writer reverts to an ad hominem framework.

Just a thought.

[Nomorecrap]

LAAJ:

Sorry if you feel I am 'playing the man', rather than the argument.

You say you hold both the 'P's - good for you and good for the debate.

I never suggested otherwise as you infer - I am pleased to see you haven't stopped reading my arguments just yet despite the misunderstanding.

The issue is oil.

Time will tell how right or wrong the various personalities are.

[The SSK]

Can a European join this debate?

Because in our end of the world if you go into any airline boardroom, any governmental agency dealing with aviation, any industry grouping, and you’ll very quickly get a sense of what is the biggest challenge facing the industry in the medium term – it’s not fuel supply, far from it. It’s the impact of aviation on the environment. CO2 – global warming – Kyoto and all that stuff.

One week from today the EU Finance Ministers have a summit where they will almost certainly vote to push ahead with a proposal to hit the airlines with a double whammy of a ticket tax and a fuel tax, which could add 30 Euros to a short-haul journey and 90 Euros long-haul. And that’s one way.

The idea is quite simply to choke off demand and make the industry shrink in size. Less passengers = less flying = less fuel burn = less CO2. And lots of lovely tax revenue in the various national exchequers. They have even linked it to humanitarian aid to Africa to make it even more attractive politically.

[Duff Man]

desk jockey,
great to see your input. The irony with the EU's actions is that (as posted on the first page of this topic) contrails actually reduce the impact of global warming. Reducing jet traffic will, apparently, reduce the cooling effect of "global dimming" and accelerate global warming! :uhoh:

life as a journey,
hey - I learnt a new latin expression today, cheers. But I can see how NMC is frustrated with others' blind belief in "she'll be right".

[sling load]

One of the most intelligent debates i have seen on pprune in a long while.
As oil is a finite resource, oil companies will go farther offshore to find fields, thus, the price will go up to match exploration.
Theres no doubt in my mind that we will see an oil crisis in my working life, and hiding from it will do nothing to prepare for the impending outcome. Well done on your post NoMoreCrap.

[reynoldsno1]

As oil is a finite resource, oil companies will go farther offshore to find fields, thus, the price will go up to match exploration.
The price has to go up to make the extraction from difficult fields commercially viable... but check out the new wonder cure... methane hydrates (http://www.ornl.gov/info/reporter/no16/methane.htm)
Looks as though India & China will have to import it as well....

[Uncommon Sense]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200504/s1339820.htm

Is it just me, or is the use of the term 'surcharge' just spin?

There isn't a catering surcharge, or a crew surcharge, or an aircraft leasing surcharge - it is just the cost of doing business isn't it?

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

I remember seeing these types of debates back in the 70's, the last time oil prices went up substantially. The media love it but it is not based in fact.

Proven Canadian shale oil deposits rival those of Saudi Arabia. Unproven reserves potentially leave the Middle East for dead. Up till recently it was not economic to recover them but due to advances in filtration technology and the higher prices of oil, it now is. Extraction costs are now down to around 9 dollars a barrel. Watch Canada become a major exporter of oil to the US in the future.

Despite the large fuel orders we complete in our day to day jobs, aviation fuel usage is dwarfed by the usage of automobiles. Already moves are underway for alternative fuels such as hydrogen and hydrogen/petrol hybrids to begin replacing the petrol engine. The technology is there, the infrastructure will take X number of years to put in place. Once cars are weaned off petrol, oil reserves for aviation will cease to become an issue.

I personally welcome the higher prices because it will spur the development of the alternatives that will make this a cleaner planet. The only thing missing up till now has been the political will, maybe this will change soon.

On the subject of a cleaner planet, anyone ever heard of thermal depolymerization?

[Life as a journey]

Nice reply Borg; you've hit both nails on the head.

My father-in-law is right up there with the hydrogen, and its hybrid hydrogen/petrol derivate, power source as an alternative to fossil fuels we're using now.

I get the good oil from him regularly, so to speak. Hasn't been a viable alternative so far, but only due to economics. That's changing, as is the feasibility of previously uneconomic fields of oil and gas.

Such as in Brunei. Small market, to be sure, but it's my local, which gives me a bit of an insight.

We're wildly profitable right now. Back in '98, things were not as clear. Both Elf and Fletcher Challenge stopped looking for new fields when the price got to $17 a barrell.

It's safe to say the oil companies here are not inactive now.

There are nine oil fields off Bandar.

One of them, Seria, has 700 wells, of which 400 are capped. And that's just Brunei, a small Sultanate just north of the equator.

We don't even come close to the potential in Canada.

So yeah, there is a shift occuring, it just isn't seismic.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Like I said...what oil shortage?

I will admit to being as worried as anyone about Peak Oil etc over the last little while...who wouldn't be....but too I am old enough to remember the 73 oil crisis and was buying petrol for my car in the 79 one.

The 'end of the world as we know it' cries were the same then as now.

a more realistic appraisal (http://www.worldthreats.com/general_information/End%20of%20Age%20of%20Oil.htm)

Interesting point of view (http://www.electrifyingtimes.com/oilgoldmine.html)

It would be too much to ask mainstream media to do a little research before printing their disaster comics but we all know they print mostly BS.

I am coming to believe the Global Warming paranoia is just more of the same.

Google is great innit?

[Uncommon Sense]

Excuse me Chimbu,

Read a bit depper in to those links you posted - I am not convinced by a 19 year old geopolitical analyst!

[Chimbu chuckles]

Where's the bit about the 19 yr old?

Some more about Global warming

Holes in the greehouse effect (http://www.cato.org/dailys/6-30-97.html)

Testamony before the house of representatives science commitee (http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-pm110697.html)

Between the media trying to sensationalise and group think among people convinced the end is nigh the truth gets short thrift...human nature at it's worse.

The world isn't getting warmer and we've got at least 300 yrs of oil left.

Certainly things need to be done...lots more LPG cars and hybrid electrical etc...but Peak Oil in 20 yrs...not a chance.

Melting ice caps and the sea rising up and swallowing Islands and waterfront homes.....I think not.

Hysterical doomsayers have been around for 1000s of years...they have yet to be right...not even once.

I remember the hystrical calls of the next ice age is nigh 20 yrs ago and I certainly remember the last several petrol crises (artificially created by Arabs pissed off with the US)...they all just quietly slipped away...in 20 yrs we've gone from the next ice age is due any minute to global warming and melting ice caps swallowing the coasts of every country. For starters the Arctic is an ice continent floating in water the whole thing could melt and not raise the sea levels on inch...try it in a glass of water with heaps of ice...and leave it to melt. The water level will be unchanged because the ice dispaces the same amount of liquid water as the volums of ice.

Global warming and an end to oil based society in my, or indeed my great, great, great grandkids life span seem pretty unlikely to me...I have no doubt we will have higher petrol prices for a while and they may never be below $1.00 again/for a very long time...just like they're never going to be below $0.50 again...or $0.30, or $0.25. Nor are your house rates going to drop or insurance premiiums for cars or the price of bread/milk/steak/etc...neither will our wages be what they were 30yrs ago...things cost more...that's life.

Sustained higher oil prices will lead to higher wages and a new acceptable balance will be reached...it's been thus for a fair while now...Think it's called inflation.

[tinpis]

Chuck if the mob that lives in my town have been living here for as long as they reckon they have, there ancestrors most certainly lost a bloody awful lot of real estate after the last ice age.

[Duff Man]

Chimbu, posting from the Cato Institute website.... should you know better? Check out some of their sponsors:

ChevronTexaco Corporation
ExxonMobil Corporation
General Motors Corporation
Mazda North America Operations
Mitsubishi Motors America, Inc
Toyota Motor Corporation

Hardly without a vested interest? pfffft

[Chimbu chuckles]

Well show me where information can be got that isn't sponsored by people/groups without any bias whatsoever...Perhaps Greenpeace...on second thoughts not.

While I wasn't aware that CATO has those sponsors it doesn't really bother me either. The pro Global warming side used to get lots of money from Ford and GM as well...until they became convinced that the science was flawed.

Lots and lots and LOTS of Googling and reading other stuff as well has convinced me that a lot of the mass hysteria is just group think.

Perhaps we are, in the future, going to have another Ice Age and logic suggests one day we will certainly run out of oil...I found no evidence that convinces me either of these things are going to be any time soon.

In my experience people who have little fact to base their argument on argue emotively and are dismissive of any counter argument. How can you argue against the super accurate atmospheric temperature recordings done over the best part of 60 yrs? That is the sort of imperical data I can accept.

On the other side of the argument we have computer models which are designed and modified (manipulated) until they are deemed to give correct information. One bad storm season is touted to validate predictions made by a computer that has been programmed by an individual or group who believe Global Warming is a reality and that the causes are man made....anyone wanna guess at the information that is not being fed into those models because it is not deemed important by an individual or group with a "It's all our fault" bias.

Govts are feeding Billions into Global warming research...if pro warming scientists find some of the data doesn't quite support their argument don't you think human nature being what it is they'd tend to minimise the import of that data...and who's going to be the first to raise his/her hand and say "Opps, sorry Mr President...we fecked up" and kill the gravy train. How many of his former collegues will then label him a nut? How many times have we seen similar behaviour within our own life experiences and do we really believe the label scientist removes that individual from the general weaknesses and charachter flaws that inflict mankind in general?

One side says the world is getting warmer and our computer models suggest it's gone up 1 or 2 degrees in the last century and it's going to accelerate away in the next...while the other group looks at impirical data and say "What...where?...The temperature recordings say it hasn't gone up at all and might even be cooling off a little lately"

One side says Global warming is here and disaster is around the corner (emotive) and the other side says "Well the science doesn't prove that and we don't know enough about a lot of this science to make such predictions let alone base Govt policy on it and move forward on plans that will cost mankind trillions of dollars. Let the science move forward without the pollitical pressures and wait and see what we come up with"

The other side says "WAIT?? WE CAN"T WAIT...THE FUTURE OF MANKIND IS IN THE BALANCE...LIFE AS WE KNOW IT IS ENDING!!!!"

More and more in the last weeks we are hearing that world crude supply is not the reason for the high prices but a limitation in refining facilities. Not to mention being driven up by the Stock Market's futures traders...a bunch of 20 somethings hell bent on becoming multi-millionaires over night.

The USGS and other similar bodies are saying "Hey there is plenty of oil still in the ground + oil shale, oil sands, heavy oil in Velenzuala..and on and on".

Petrol prices hit $1.16 in Melbourne apparently in the last few days...petrol prices were in that region 5 yrs ago.

China is creating supply problems...it's a fecking big place with shedloads of oil shale itself and how much oil drilling has been done there...wait for the anouncement that they have just stumbled upon reserves that make the Saudis look like a bunch of dirt poor Bedoin.

What is under the Antartic? We won't know for a very long time probably because pressure from Greenpeace and similar will keep that place locked up for a very long time yet.

Russia and Iraq's real oil reserves are a big mystery and their oil apparatus is in dissarray....but knowledgeable people suggest there is a hell of a lot more there than we know about.

Personally, after a period spent worrying about my daughter's future, I am content that the sea levels aren't going to ruin my property plans and petrol will be available and affordable for a very long time yet.

But if you guys wanna worry yourselves into an early grave fill your boots.

[Uncommon Sense]

Where's the bit about the 19 yr old?

"WorldThreats.com was founded by Ryan Mauro, the Youngest Hired Geopolitical Analyst in the North America. (He is 19)"

-- from his website you quoted.


Nobody here seems to be advocating global hysteria as you suggest - just an acknowledgement that Peak Oil is a legitimate theory, we have reached it more or less, and alternative sources of oil will be more expensive (shale / sands etc.), and that alternative sources where oil is not economical need to be properly embraced. The point of the whole thread was the effect on Aviation I thought?

On your point about vested interests - I king of agree that everyone has a vested interest - unless you are a purely independent scientist (i.e. University paid - not corporate sponsored).

[Duff Man]

Chimbu/US, agreed, any research is biased to some degree. The CATO Institute just looks like a mouthpiece for the Oil and Motor industries. But all sides need to be heard, of course.

On the subject of empirical evidence vs scientific research, may I quote from the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_qa.shtml) transcript,
I don't think the figures on global warming are open to interpretation. It is an established fact that global temperatures have risen by 0.6°C over the past century. It is also an established fact that carbon dioxide levels have risen by about 100 parts per million over the same period due to human activity. It is a matter of the basic laws of physics that an increase in carbon dioxide will trap more heat in the Earth's atmosphere, which is why almost no respectable and independent scientist doubts the causal link between these two established facts.

The only surprise is that the warming has not been greater - which is where global dimming comes in. ... we are in for far faster warming in the future as particle emissions are brought under control while greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise.

I beg to differ about mass hysteria - in fact there are surprisingly few voices in the media that seem to be addressing the Peak Oil debate with any low-brow angle. And certainly there is no panic in the streets. Scepticism is necessary of course but ignorance is dangerous.