Under the category of "unintended consequences" a public awareness of peak oil will take some of the pressure off politicians to do stupid things like de-regulate air emissions from refineries on the knee jerk theory that doing so will somehow lower cost. None too soon either. Financial Times is reporting that the shift from MTBE as an oxygenate to corn based EtOH will result in fuel shortages this summer that are similar to what happened from Katrina. Prices in the $3/gallon range are being projected. Layer that over the coming hurricane season (early July on to November) and things could get drastic much sooner than peak oil would indicate.

It starts out by saying these events are partly in the future and it's 2009. It looks like a story saying a terror event could force peak oil or something like it. I really don't like it already. Next time Treehugger, pick something on the Discovery Channel. I don't think CNN wants to handle the real issue without sticking terror and a catchy story on it.

I am wincing and shaking my head! This was really irresponsible. This just confused the issue. They interlace terror sci-fi with real modern day info on peak oil. For someone that never heard of peak oil, they might think it's related to terror for no reason at all. No one ever says peak oil means oils runs out MANY years from now. They put out this 2009 garbage because they don't think the audience will care if it does not impact them NOW! I really hate TV like this. After this garbage is done, I am going to send an e-mail to CNN telling them never to reair it. Is anyone else watching this?

30 minutes in they mention we might be at the peak of oil but then it's confused when the host says it's really a "state secret." It's the same author that was talking all through the terror segment... (containing my anger) Anyway, they cover Brazil in depth and hint at a few other solutions but it does not make up for the first very bad thirty minutes. Why? I think there are factual errors in those segment too. I will review it and write a strongly worded e-mail to CNN but one thing that jumped out was he said 3/4 of Brazil's cars are flex. I think that's right. I don't recall hearing tax too. I loved when they said this is renewable energy when they showed an ethanol smoke stack. AHHH! Even if that was right the entire show was horrible. I have seen bad TV but when TV garbles something you really care about it hurts. It really hurts.

Thanks for live-blogging it, anonymous. I missed it tonight and might try to catch it tomorrow out of a morbid fascination.

I did not expect much from CNN. I guess that maybe the only good thing that comes out of this is that people will recognize the term "peak oil" and be vaguely aware that there's something serious brewing.

But it might be hard to fight all the misinformation. Damn these journalists! They have research teams, they are paid, they can take their time. Why won't they get it right once in a while? I don't care if they screw up unimportant stories, but this deserves the best coverage possible.

*sigh*

Thanks but it was probably not the best idea to live blog it. It was not that bad a video essay. It's not about peak oil at all really. It's really about oil supply and shocks to it. In the next two posts, I describe the segments and then my opinions.

Segments tied together by hypothetical scenario that develops through the hour. Terrorists attack Saudi oil supply after another-bigger Katrina in 2009 causing oil crisis. I won't describe it's development, just the news-like segments.

Starts off with a little history. Carter. Oil embargo.

Clinton's CIA director. If there was a threat, he knew about it. As citizen takes stand (testify, write) on oil. Has solar panels on his house, drives a hybrid. It's a security threat.

Author Twilight in the Desert. Oil Analyst says at or close to point where consume more oil than we produce. His worst case is energy wars between your neighbors, towns and countries. Chaos.

Anadarko. Helicopter to drill ship in Gulf of Mexico deep water. He's there to see how far we will go for oil. They can drill 6 miles. Gee-whiz 3-d technology in the labs. But it's just a quick hit. Cannot drill to oil in dependence.

Canadian oil sands. Second largest after Saudi Arabia. Won't help if there is a revolution there. Maybe 100 years but they are building a pipe line to coast to ship to China.

Chinese couple buying car. China making deals all over the world. Back to Twilight author which says we don't know what Saudi has and it's a state secret.

BP. Power company commercials on conservation, peak oil. Is it just PR? Video of oil CEO before Congress. No new refineries in decades. Could drill oil Independence if no environmental blocks.

Brazil. Sugar cane field to ethanol. Clean, renewable. They burn fiber to power the plant. No waste. Building mills. Makes Alcool. 20% regular gas is even Ethanol. Not an experiment in Brazil. After oil shocks in 70's military government decrees it. 40% transportation fuel. 3/4 car flex fuel. It's profitable now. They won. Oil Independence soon. Why can't we do this in the US host asks driving on Ethanol in the field of cane.

Detroit. No demand. Not much distribution out side the south. Oil is cheap, a birth right. We don't consider oil a problem. Starts to rap it up by going back to Clinton CIA director.

Bush. State of the Union. Hydrogen cars may be years away. Fuel from hay. Critics say it's late and underfunded.

2009 scenario ends, after lots of bad stuff, president signs mandatory conservation into law and throws billions at alternative energy.

The end.

The segment from the CIA director had the feeling, well, he was CIA director, now he cares about this stuff so it must matter. It had that kind of feeling to the whole show. That's the kind of logic that took us to war.

Oil analyst's book is not on peak oil and his Mad Max worst case won't ever happen. CNN picked the wrong guy to describe what peak oil means because it wanted someone was on the ground. All the segments from Anadarko are useless for the same reason.

I think they just wanted to show cool VR technology and big trucks. As for Brazil, they forgot to mention the tax and other many problems with Ethanol. Like I said in the live blog, they said clean, renewable while showing a smoke stack. It was strange.

It's not that simple either. We are not just going to move to Ethanol when there is another crisis. Using examples like Brazil is just as bad as saying we should move to Geothermal because because of Holland. It's a totally different country and the fact that it's military just makes environmentalists look like fascists.

There is an underlying truth. Reporting is not saying we cannot drill our way to energy independence in one segment then the opposite in another because of who you talk to you. Through the entire thing he host says, this guy was a straight talking, down to earth, marine or whatever and it's really pointless.

Ignoring a few factual errors, it's probably the best a like CNN could pull off on the topic.

Thanks for taking the time to write, Anonymous! Appreciated.

Not really about peak oil at all. My guess is they started out to produce a segment on Peak Oil and some VP jumped in and said the script was too boring and they had to bump it up with scare stories. Eventually it turned into a garbled Scenario that had low plausibility for the average person who was not familiar with all the future drivers being cited.

The scenario they cited does have some plausibility but the problem is that other scenarios are equally plausible, and viewers know it. Unless they gave equal time or gravity to those other scenarios (each of which has its own scary side or positive side) it is easy to dismiss this one and go back to "the official future".

I have information to hydrogen production that would cost 1/2 the cost of oil based fuels. What do the people feel about this? After contacting several sen. members, they have no real direction other then sending me to the gov. sponcered invention groups.