Peak oil bad news for everyone however good for subway and skytrain

[gwmss15]

Have you ever herd of the issue of peak oil?

it seems to be a very serious issue with very deep wide ranging effects

here is a flash animation from a british website
http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/porta...ies/animoil.swf

http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/porta...ies/animoil.swf

also another good site for info on peak oil is www.peakoil.com a usa based site with members from all over the world

everyone should have a look at this and think what they can do to fix it and yes its very relivent for the railways and mass transit world in thailand and other places

[john2523]

I just started researching this topic. In addition to the links gwmss15 mentions above, you can also check out http://www.bangkok-peakoil.com. They have a really detailed FAQ that talks about many of these issues. I highly recommend everyone start learning about this topic. It has made me realize that the billions of baht spent on the Subway and Skytrain are quite probably the smartest investments Thailand will ever make. I also understand now why PTT is pushing NGV so much. This is a serious problem that will affect all of us.

John

[Khun004]

.
Fretting about peak oil is very fashionable this year.

The same thinking that now warns about peak oil, used to warn about global cooling.
And does so with the same hand-wringing language.
Do you remember all the angst about global cooling?
Here's a reminder - from Newsweak magazine - in 1975!

http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm

Just a little careful research beyond the margins of mass media will show that many (but not all) in the petroleum industry don't worry about peak oil.
In some (but not all) economic newsletters, peak oil is dismissed as just another indicator of the leftist, political, drama that has infected mass media.

For example, the Alberta (Canada) oil sands contain huge quantities of petroleum - enough to supply all of North America for generations.
Not just years, but generations.
Yes, cost of extraction from oil sands is somewhat higher than cost of production in the Middle East, and the distillation feed is more sulphurous than the sweet crude of Saudi Arabia, but still easily within economic range.

And the Alberta oil sands are just one of many, sources of energy.

So whenever I hear or read about peak oil, I start wondering what will be the next scare.
Maybe peak food?
No, Thomas Maltus already wrote about peak food - in "Essay on the Principle of Population".
That was in 1798.
If Maltus were alive today, he'd probably be posting on some Internet forum about peak oil.

So what is the next scare from the Chicken Littles who run around crying, "The sky is falling!"

.

[jpatokal]

I just started researching this topic. In addition to the links gwmss15 mentions above, you can also check out http://www.bangkok-peakoil.com. They have a really detailed FAQ that talks about many of these issues.
Except the obvious: what happens then the demand for oil exceeds the supply? The answer is that the price of oil rises (exhibit A: 2005), which means that people start reducing consumption and looking for other ways to get energy. But it's not going to happen overnight, the price will just keep on rising slowly (as a trend, that is, they're already going down from this year's temporary peak) and the alternatives will become more and more attractice. It's not going to cause the End of Civilization As We Know It(tm) overnight as long as there are places like Alberta tar sands where oil can be extracted, only at a higher price.

[GWR]

.
Fretting about peak oil is very fashionable this year.

To what is the next scare from the Chicken Littles who run around crying, "The sky is falling!"

.

On the Peek Oil issue, you may have a point. No one has a complete monopoly on the truth. I'm not in a position to challenge your data (due to a slight financial embarassment in arranging for my own personal energy-policy advisor).

In any case, I don't automatically believe either neocons or their recalcitrant lefty partners-in-crime. It seems to me they are both running basic commonsense ragged. If they can't see a degraded environment, they are obviously short-sighted and/or living in gated communities.

The oil industry is basically an extractive industry; and as such, has no real experience of long-term resource husbandry. We might well be better off listening to the reports of organisations who favor a longer-term energy policy.

You demean people by suggesting their concerns are little more than a 'fashion statement'. The oil industry is unlikely to come clean on this issue any time soon; so until such time as we receive some relatively impartial reports, it is highly likely that we will continue to be suspicious. In the meantime, if you want people to be better informed, I suggest you present your insider knowledge on this topic in a way that doesn't automatically favor either oil or environmental interests.