Charlie Rose

Shane Algarin  10/25/2008 12:59 PM Report

It's well past the time for the Democrats and Republicans to grow a spine and win back our respect. They can be much more persuasive with honesty, rather than deception. A ban on offshore drilling is not a significant explanation for high gas prices.

The top reasons for high gas prices:

1. Lack of competition translates into paying more at the pump.(Exxon merges with Mobil, ChevronTexaco, BPArco, etc )

2. Were the diplomatic skills of this administration up to par, oil prices would be far more stable. Invading Iraq has only brought instability. Angering Russia by placing our military and our missiles at their doorstep only brings more instability.

3. If the dollar was as strong today as it was when Bush took office, $140 would fetch closer to 2 barrels of oil.

4. CAFE standards are too weak. Future technology is promising, but fuel efficiency could double using old technology.

It seems like our President wants high oil prices. But that would make him an oil man...inconceivable!

WE NEED ATTACK DOGS BRAVE ENOUGH TO STAND UP TO BIG OIL! Instead we get politicians too eager to roll over.

Guitarsandmore805  07/21/2008 11:10 PM Report

Why is it every time we have a military intervention in the Middle East the price of oil goes up? It happened in the 1970s, the 1990s and again now. Sorry, I don't buy this guy's stories.

Oil companies need to come clean about all the oil wells they have capped around the country so they can artificially drive up the price of oil.

Digger  07/21/2008 04:35 PM Report

I've just read all of these comments. Most of them were articulate, well thought out and very well informed. There have been discussions like this going on all over the unofficial channels for quite sometime. It seems overwhelmingly obvious that industry, the media and especially our elected officials are all well behind public opinion on the energy issue. There has been an enormously popular outcry for a comprehensive energy policy for years now.

As far back as the mid 90''s Americans known that our current energy situation is not sustainable, is harmful to the environment and compromises our security. We've known that it will take emerging technologies, nuclear energy and conservation efforts to fix it. We've just been waiting for the institutions that govern our lives to facilitate these necessary changes (i.e. tele-commuting, bike paths, effective mass transit, D.C. transmission lines) None of this is new to most Americans. $4 per gallon did not wake up the American public. $4 per gallon woke up the major media outlets.

Kenny Yuman  07/21/2008 12:34 PM Report

I didn't come here to watch this guy. His model and forecast have been long wrong and should have been discredited. What I don't understand is why the media gives him the publicity. I suspect that there is a media mafia, a conspiracy, that is designed to fool the people. I can't put his in the context of politics and economics. Who benefits from his blatant falsehood? Who pays him to BS around?

Harold Finigan  07/06/2008 11:56 AM Report

Our ongoing energy crisis will be the defining event of this generation. We have built America's infrastructure on the assumption that energy (esp. Oil) is cheap and infinite. We need to reassess this assumption in light of reality.

May I suggest that you sponsor a "Peak Oil Debate" with Mr. Yergen and Matt Simmons

Andrew  07/01/2008 01:18 PM Report

Did anyone else find it fascinating that when Charlie raised the issue of "petro-dictatorships," Yergin named three countries - Venezuela, Iran, and Russia - all of which regularly hold elections, and on an ordinal scale of democracies, surely would be considered more democratic than, say, Saudi Arabia or Libya?

Dubina  07/01/2008 12:31 PM Report

Based on some of Charlie's interview questions on supply, I think he was cognizant of Peak Oil and the current milieu of supply shortage. I think he tried to get Yergin to say something about it. Yergin wasn't tempted. OK, fine; it is what it is. If Yergin won't talk about Peak Oil with oil over $135 a barrel, he will never talk about it.

Several people above have called for Ken Deffeyes or Colin Campbell to be called on for expert witness. It would be a mistake and a disservice to the country for that not to happen.

Shalom Freedman  07/01/2008 06:04 AM Report

Apparently 'money questions' or in this case 'energy questions related to money ' bring out the best in Americans. The comments on this show are by and large informative and interesting, and not the kind of polemical and often hate- filled junk which appears on purely political subjects.

Yergin tells us that the Energy problem is a long- term one, that there is no easy fix, that we should have had an Energy Policy in 1990, and may get one only with the new President. He tells us that the U.S. economy is going to need more natural gas in the future, that it might be wise to begin developing alternative sources in a more accelerated way. He notes that the Petrofortunes are going to players not necessarily sympathetic to U.S. and Western values, including Russia, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia. He suggests that we try and work with China and other major consumers to see that a war of all- against- all does not take place on the Energy front.

He does not however go much beyond the Energy story and tell us the effect the one- hundred fifty- dollar barrel of Oil is going to have even on the short - term world economic situation. He does however say that the U.S. should not use its strategic reserve but keep up in the worst- case scenario of closing by Iran of the Straits of Hormuz.

Yergin does not give us definite and easy answers, but he fills out some of the pieces of the puzzle. As the comments of viewers indicate however there are many he does not touch upon.

He however pooh- poohs the idea of some Emergence Energy Initiative parallel to Kennedy's Moon Project. I would have thought that in opposite what the U.S. needs now is a new kind of dynamic visionary leadership which will frontally address this problem, and give not only American citizens but the world as a whole a sense that it is truly being tackled.

Shaft  07/01/2008 01:52 AM Report

Mr. Yergin is trying to make people loosen up and relax, while he knows the world hydrocarbon resources supply is picking he just doesn't want to alert us. The fact is hydrocarbon energy has been and continues to be the source of many of our problems and it's advisable for America to use all her ingenuity toward developing renewable energy and alternative to hydrocarbon energy source addiction. All States should give incentives to encourage consumer to use other source of energy, such as solar energy and wind energy. Massachusetts gives incentives of paying half of the solar installations to consumer; the problem is the other states with year round solar energy should take it upon themselves to do the same. I am surprised people in this forum are not freaking out that free solar energy is allowed to go to wasted without harnessing it. We are in the 21st century and still unable to come up with cost effective solar energy harnessing techniques. Europeans have beaten us hands down in terms of pushing for renewable energy, Germany generates nearly 10% of total energy consumed from solar and wind turbine, France is a little below, and UK has planted a wind turbine farm off of the English channel. It seems we are the only one way behind. Now that our car industries are struggling to keep up and have lost to Japanese automobile industries, its time to wake America up and do something about it. Our living standard is slowly but surely declining just because of lack of vision in the leadership. If we are to liberate ourselves from the constant bickering with the troubled countries, and the Europeans can liberate themselves from Russia's thumb of influence, and avoid confrontations with China and India then we need to get our ars up and take a leadership role into healing the world as well as dissociating our dependency from hydrocarbon energy source. At least by 2025 we should be well into getting our half energy requirement from alternative renewable energy source. Now Russia has full control over Europe, all they have to do is turn down the spigot if the country refuses to abide by a certain rule drawn up in the Kremlin's demand. China and India are going to need four and three times more hydrocarbon energy source as we consumed to reach our level so they can fully develop. We only have a decade by now to get things right or else we are endangering our planet.

Uncle Ron  06/30/2008 11:20 PM Report

Mr. Yergin did a fine job overall with many good insights. Too bad, however, that even he

can't tell the simple truth about U.S. oil production. The radical enviro groups (Sierra Club, Ctr. for Biological Diversity, Environmental Defense to name just a few) are a major Democrat Party funder and supporter. They receive billions from the leftist Foundations (Ford, Turner, Pew, Mott, Rockefeller Bros., etc.) which is used to fund

endless lawsuits and the Democrats. This is why the Democrat Party opposes oil, coal and

nuclear power. These groups use the "Engangered Species Act" to file lawsuits many of which are just "nuisance" suits to tie up issues in the courts. 95% of the Sierra Club's lawsuits are nuisance suits. As for nuclear power, they just flat out lie about this source as 98% of the waste can be recycled as done in France and the remaining 2% of the waste is basically harmless in about 75 years not thousands. Harry Reid's stoppage of the Yucca Mountain project is an outrage as the 2% waste could be stored here quite safely. The recent "Polar Bear" listing will be used to file suits against Alaska oil development and elsewhere other species such as the "Sagegrouse" will be used to stop other development. Why anyone who cares about the economic future of America would vote for any Democrat is beyond comprehension. The proposed tax policies of Mr. Obama will kill the economy - who does he think creates jobs?

Taxing small businessmen and corporations will kill jobs just as putting a luxury tax on the luxury boat builders a couple decades ago killed that industry until the tax was repealed. Taxing oil companies is equally stupid - yes, the numbers are large but so is the investment capital required as Mr. Yergin pointed out. The percenage profits are barely above the general industry averages. Read the new book "Gusher of Lies" by Robert Bryce which dispels a lot of the false propaganda being put out these days.

Roy Fassel  06/30/2008 09:48 PM Report

I have read some of the most bazaar comments about "speculators" causing all the price rises in energy and other commodities. I don't quite know where all of this comes from. Some have mentioned that it is all Cheney, Bush One, Bush Two and likely Bush Three and Four...... evil oil and even FOX. Try to read Robert Samuelson of the Washington Post/Newsweek organization. Maybe he is too much in the tank for oil companies, and not goofy enough for some, but it is worth your time to read his review of "speculators". Point is that steel and other industrial metals have also risen as much as crude. None trade on the "futures" market...so the idea that futures markets and speculators are the cause of fundamental changes are ill conceived. But that "propaganda/brainwashing" sells to the masses. Its all about capitalism vs. "controlled and planned economies." Humanity has been down that road before and this country is heading into the same "roadmap." Soviet style. Not Russia or China style.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/143786

TABS  06/30/2008 03:58 PM Report

There are seminal events that irrevocably change the course of history and nation states. Americans can argue among themselves all they like but that doesn't change the reality of the situation. This particular "oil crisis" is shaping up to be one of those nation changing events. The America that we have known since the end of WW2 is going away. There is a shift of power taking place in the world. No longer will America be first among nations but will have slipped into the one among many powers that be. The effect on the people of this nation will be profound as suddenly the cherished lifestyle that has been so long taken for granted will vanish before our very eyes. Americans will have to start to learn to do with less gasoline, heating oil, electricity,natural gas, consumer goods, medical treatment, food, clean water and civil government (including pension funds). What they will be in for is more pollution, chaos and crowding as the scramble for resources to maintain a sembalnce of the former lifstyle becomes harder fought.In other words the Disneyland that America has represented economically since the end of WW2 is about to go bust. So Americans would be well advised to buy that sweater with their last dollar as Jimmy Carter advised so long ago.

Richard Streit  06/30/2008 02:33 PM Report

Why is it that every time someone like Mr. Yergin comes on we hear all about how more has to be invested by the oil companies when they already have record profits that they pump into their executives pockets. Nothing is said about going after their grossly overstated incomes. Nothing is said about eraseing the electric car from the american landscape. And nothing is said about which candidate is more funded by big oil.

Cameron L Stewart  06/30/2008 02:15 PM Report

The public interest would have been much better served if Daniel Yergin had covered the following facts: 1) World oil consumption is currently peaked at about 85 million barrels per day, and has held roughly flat for the last several years. At current usage we will run out of conventional oil by the year 2050. Even as oil production has peaked, China's demand has continued to rise due to our unsustainable global economy. The laws of supply and demand, futures speculation, and the value of the U.S. dollar all determine the price of oil. 2)U.S. consumption has held flat for the last 10 years at 21 million barrels per day. The U.S. only produces 5 million per day. Drilling in the arctic wildlife preserve would take at least 10 years to bring in another 1 million barrels, adding 5% more available oil to the current U.S. market. 3)Peak Oil: Marion King Hubbard first predicted in 1956 that U.S. oil production would peak around 1970 at 10 million barrels per day. History shows his prediction was correct. In 1970 Hubbard predicted that world oil production would peak around the year 2000. Kenneth Deffeyes recently revised that prediction to Dec 2005. These predictions were based on known oil discoveries around the world peaking in the 1960's, and observing a 40 year lag between discovery peaking and production peaking. Since 1990, very little new oil has been discovered because there is little left to be discovered. 4) Of the known 2 trillion barrels of conventional oil discovered, 1 trillion have already been pumped out of the earth. 5) Oil production follows a bell shaped distribution curve where the ascending phased is determined by the installation of drilling rigs and the descending phase occurs after about half the oil is pumped out. The remaining oil is thicker and under less pressure, making it harder to extract, hence production declines. 6)Canada has roughly 1 trillion barrels in tar sand oil. However it takes 4 barrels of water to process 1 barrel oil. Getting enough oil and natural gas to process these tar sands and dealing with the environmental issues surrounding toxic waste water disposal and mining is problematic. 7) Oil shale production in the U.S. was found to be unprofitable in the 1970's because oil shale is energy negative: It takes more energy to produce oil from shale than the energy you get out. 8) When Nixon dismantled the Bretton Woods international system and refused to exchange dollars for gold on the international market, he replaced it with the Petrodollar system where all oil is traded in dollars. The system worked for 30 years because Saudi Arabia had enough excess capacity to control world markets and the U.S. supplied military support to Saudi Arabia. This made the dollar artificially strong. Saudi Arabia oil production is now maxed out and it no longer controls the price of oil or its exchange in dollars. 9) Energy policy for the last eight years was shaped by Dick Cheney behind closed doors with all the major oil companies. It was assumed that invading IRAQ and then IRAN was the strategic answer to increasing diminishing oil supplies. We now see the results. 10) Hugo Chavez is a democratically elected president, committed to ensuring that Venezuela's oil and other resources are used for the benefit of Venezuela and its people, not a for small wealthy elite and not for transnational corporations. Hence the U.S. views Chavez as "hostile". 11) 85 million barrels per day of oil translates into about 10 terawatts of equivalent electrical power. 10,000 1GW alternative energy power plants would be needed to replace this energy. Thus alternative energy sources will only partly make up the difference for replacing dwindling oil supplies. The balance will have to be made up with better energy efficiency and conservation. 12) Between 1980 and 2000, George Bush I, U.S. military policy, and U.S. oil companies along with OPEC have worked to discourage alternative energy development by holding oil at $10 to $20 per barrel. 13) For more info see "Peak Oil" and "Beyond Peak Oil" by Kenneth Deffeyes, "The Party's Over" by Richard Heinberg, "Out of Gas" by Dr. David Goodman,"Alchohol Can Be a Gas" by David Blume, and "The War on Democracy" a video by John Pilger.

John Lee  06/30/2008 12:16 PM Report

Usually your show is all over the important issues of the day, but for some reason you seem reluctant to devote much airtime to the developing oil crisis. You need to get many more experts on the show to discuss what steps we (government, industry, and society as a whole) need to take to try to maintain our economy and way of life. It is becoming clear that our current energy policy is not sustainable, and major changes will need to be made, preferably sooner rather than later.

Roy Fassel  06/29/2008 10:27 PM Report

America is wondering why oil and energy prices have suddenly risen. Actually, the answer is quite simple. During the past half-century, America had roughly 5% of the globe's population and consumed roughly 30% of the globe's resources. During the past 2-3 decades, American domestic oil production has consistently gone down, while both domestic and foreign usage and demand has risen. As more and more Asians and other emerging nations increase their standards of living, America will need to compete by paying more and more for this imported energy. American politics has not allowed new drilling of oil in most of America that is known to have the oil. America should not be surprised at the sudden price rise of crude oil, with the insane policies of the past few decades. The world is now entering a new era where prices have to rise to ration demand on a global basis. The idea that alternative energy can soon replace fossil fuels in the volume need .....is a fantasy. Technology is the only answer to resolving this "emerging crisis." More than likely, we ain't seen nothing yet. Less than 20% of the globe's oil production is handled by multi-national corporations of the free world. The rest is controlled by unfriendly nations of democracy and liberty. In some way, it might be said that roughly one half of a billion year oil crop (it takes 800,000 years to convert decayed plant and animal matter under water to crude oil ) has been used up in less than one hundred years........or the blink of an eye. No one knows where prices are going because no one knows what the value of the dollar will be and when American politics finally faces the reality that without ANY imports, America only has three years of domestic oil left for our domestic usage. And some people are talking about "energy independence?" That is insantity with the American energy policies of the past 30-40 years.

Michael Lang  06/29/2008 02:18 PM Report

Daniel Yergin wrote a wonderful book about the historic development of the petroleum industry but he has no technical expertise or training in oil production. He is not a exploration geologist, a geophysicist or a petroleum engineer and has never worked for an oil company or has ever developed an oil field. He has a PhD. in international relations and has only a layman's knowledge of how to estimate the total amount of oil, still left to be discovered. Why not escape your middle brow funk and interview real experts like Dr. Kenneth Deffeyes and Dr. Colin Campbell along with exploration geologist from the major oil companies who may disagree with them and then maybe will have a 50 percent chance of figuring out what the hell is really causing the abrupt increase in the price of a barrel of oil.

Paul Plamondon  06/29/2008 01:45 PM Report

Dear Mr. Rose:

I really enjoyed last Friday's show, especially your last interview with Mr. Yergin whose insight is/was very à-propos and (not to say) insightful.

OIL and its supply are a "new frontier" that we must tackle head on. That's what America is all about. And we needn't worry where it will lead us: Only one place and that is it will lead us to a Promised Land of efficiency and of technological breakthroughs. Our mantra should be "New problems beg New solutions" and just get to work.

Mind you, there are several frontiers out there to be explored.'Guess we have our work cut out for ourselves, don't we....?!!

Thank you very much for your great shows which offer lots of food for thought.

Sincerely,

Paul

Robert Smith  06/28/2008 07:41 PM Report

"Yergin's broad, sweeping, historical insights should not be judged by critics looking for the narrow view of a financial analyst, of predictions of high and low monetary values."

He wrote a book called "The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power" which sold well and got good reviews. But he didn't gain enough insight in writing his book to see that his and his company's predictions of oil peaking in production in the 2030's and then hitting an "undulating plateau" for 4 more decades is a bunch of hooey. His near-term price forecast misses are just a manifestation of his long-term broad, sweeping nonsense. He does the world an incredible disservice by providing politicians, pundits and business leaders an bogus optimistic forecast about oil production that they can then chose as the most realistic.

Cristobal Senior  06/28/2008 06:52 PM Report

Shame on Charlie Rose for promoting a colonialist view of oil exploration totally one sided in favor of US/Uk oil companies. To do this he enlists the help of Daniel Yergin who is nort an oil geologist or engineer but a PR agent for the major oil corporations and a deluded "free marketeer" who is on record for stating that there is not such a thing as an oil production crisis because as price goes up then production investment will also go up and more oil will gush out. Wishful thinking.

Yergin, prodded by Rose, presents a case for more US military intervention openly under the pretext of "lack of accessibility" and the protection of local oil resources by "nationalistic anti-democratic regimes" such as Russia, Iran ,Venezuela, etc. Never mind all of them are constitutional democracies.

Charlie Rose continuous march toward the extreme right is regrettable and it is time that PBS balances his extremism with more humanisti liberal vies.

Cristobal Senior

Center for New Global Studies

NYC

Leo Toribio  06/28/2008 03:12 PM Report

Charlie,

I am repeatedly hopeful and then disappointed when I fail to see discussion of two convergent areas on your show: health and energy supply. Please see if you can find people who can address this issue.

When I was a child, half a century ago, diabetes was a relatively rare disease, mostly stemming from infancy. Type II diabetes was extremely rare. The number of smokers was approximately 45%.

When a link was noticed between smoking and lung cancer, a program to discourage smoking was established. Among other things, public enclosed spaces, like restaurants, were declared non-smoking areas.

Now everyone I knew in my lifetime who tried or succeeded in weaning themselves of the smoking habit complained, either concurrently or subsequently, about gaining weight. Smoking, you see served as an appetite suppressant.

Today, only about 15% of Americans are smokers, but 30% of them are overweight and diabetic or pre-diabetic. In other words, we simply exchanged one health problem for another.

Here's where the convergence I referred to earlier becomes clear:

When I was a child, "air-conditioning" in restaurants consisted primarily in open windows and ceiling fans. If, when the laws were passed to prohibit smoking in restaurants, additional laws were passed to prohibit air-condiioning in restaurants (or restrict "air-conditioning" to ceiling fans and open windows), I believe we would have fewer obese and diabetic people. Heat also serves as an appetite suppressant. Moreover, the energy saved by not vigorously refrigerating restaurants would have been substantial.

Restaurants, incidentally, would have benefitted in cost savings both in energy costs

and by serving smaller meals to satisfy their customers.

Leo Toribio

skeptic  06/28/2008 01:18 PM Report

Increasing margin requirements for oil futures from 5% to 55% would reduce the speculative froth considerably (and appropriatelY).

FRANCOIS FRIEDMANN  06/28/2008 11:52 AM Report

There is oil to be discovered. Also,existing fields could be produced more efficiently. The main problem is oil politics. Many producing countries are limiting the influx of foreign capital from the major Estern oil companies into their nationalized oil companies. Hence, access to new reserves is curtailed. These national companies need the technology, which is by and large developed either in the US or in Western Europe. But nationalism prevails (see Mexico, Venezuela and Russia as examples). So, production decline could occur for political reasons, not for lack of technically producible oil. Hence, the West must learn to save energy and also develop alternative technologies.

RE Mant  06/28/2008 11:51 AM Report

Ppl do not understand monetary economics. Neither undergrad econ courses nor B-schools really teach it and there is a clear disconnect between microeconomic beliefs and macroeconomic realities. The price of oil depends on the productivity of the economies who buy it. The more productive we are, the stronger the dollar, the cheaper the oil. For example in the mid-90s. The 70-80s oil shocks reflected the inflation brought on by the Vietnam war, social spending and monetary policy. Demand can never outstrip supply since it cannot ultimately outstrip the ability to pay for it. So the issue is not demand, but the value of the money offered. OPEC knows this and that's the reason why they have bent over backwards for decades to help the American economy to pay for it in the face of obvious signs that we don't really deserve the consideration. I presume the Saudis at least did so also in return for military protection. If inflation over that period were removed the price of a barrel of oil would be more than $500 right now. But while our inflationary policies have strengthened the oil suppliers they so far still need buyers.

Business doesn't conceive of hedge mkts as gambling, but as places to gather others to share speculative risk. Obviously they would like everyone to go whole hog for every project and share the loss equally if they don't pan out. This is nothing more than a merchants' cartel, where all shared in a voyage, and insured each other against failure. But there is not much of a free mkt there. However it is in no way investment unless they are committed to some enterprise, and I think we have seen enough of speculation to realize that the objective is rather to manipulate prices like the 20s pools. You can call this gambling since it is money rather than product they are after and that depends on manipulation of opinion rather than any real production, the risk is more volatile, and that is the definition of a gamble. Hedge funds though may be right in arguing that regulating them will not be fruitful in stemming speculation. Cutting off the source of easy money that they use for it would undoubtedly be better.

The best thing I think we can do to solve this problem other than cutting off inflation is to pass greenhouse gas legislation.

Malcolm Bowman  06/28/2008 11:50 AM Report

What I find amazing about tonight’s show (6/27/08) is that there was absolutely no mention by either Charlie Rose or Daniel Yurgin of the crisis of climate change precipitated by our insatiable appetitive for oil. There was a sense in the program that if only we could find a stable, benevolent way of extracting and cheaply buying all the oil we ever need, then everyone would live happy, fulfilled lives and all the lights will stay on forever.

Why don’t these experts see we are living in a fool’s paradise? Charlie, you had Fred Krupp, President of the Environmental Defense Fund on the other night talking about how we must change our wasteful ways, but it doesn’t sink in. There was talk tonight of conservation and alternate energy sources, but there was no sense of urgency or pending catastrophe if we don’t get CO2 emissions way down.

Nobody whose livelihood depends on the oil industry ever seems to get it, and Charlie, you don’t go after them!

Malcolm Bowman

Stony Brook NY

Tim  06/28/2008 11:49 AM Report

Well,

In Yergin's book Russia 2010, written in 1993,

he predicts Russia experiencing an "economic miracle" and resurging as a global political power. That, at least, seems to be happening.

I do agree with some of the other criticisms posted here however. But really, he is in the

consulting business and although an analyst,

he is not a journalist.

Dino Pello  06/28/2008 04:31 AM Report

Those of you who critique Yergin's record of analysis could check there impressions with the website "The Sad Record of Daniel Yergin and Cambridge Energy Research Associates" at

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cera.htm

The graph at the very end is a good summary of the history.

Dan Tanner  06/28/2008 03:51 AM Report

A conversation that has to be had by the American people and their politicans.The US does not call the tune anymore.We now face the stark reality of paying those that don't share our values and accept the fact that we will only grow weaker and less in command of our own destiny..and join the ranks of those that keep quite and pay those with the oil and gas,what ever they demand.

Or,do ALL the things that must be done,seek alternatives to foreign oil.Drill HERE now.Keep Canada friendly to us.Build nuclear plants.Find ways to clean coal use.Stop allowing the "don't build anything anywhere" crowd to drive the agenda.Reality will soon dawn on this nation,it ain't all that cool to be third world.Only in Hollywood and in ivory towers.

Davis Tucker  06/28/2008 03:28 AM Report

Unfortunately, Charlie, you did not call Yergin to task for his/CERA's ill-informed analyses of our oil situation over the past few years.

I would encourage you to visit The Oil Drum, a site that facilitates discussions of energy and our future, to have a look at a couple of posts that talk about Yergin/CERA:

Peak Oil Overview - June 2008

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4172

and

"Holding Daniel Yergin Accountable"

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3487

Cheers, DT

Karen Otten  06/28/2008 12:06 AM Report

Yergin's broad, sweeping, historical insights should not be judged by critics looking for the narrow view of a financial analyst, of predictions of high and low monetary values.

Robert Smith  06/27/2008 11:36 PM Report

It is a sad testament to the state of the American Media that Daniel Yergin is asked to come on a TV program and talk about oil. His forecasts have been wrong time and again during this rise from $20 (or less) 10 years ago to now. He and his company are somehow predicting that oil production will not peak for a few more decades and then hit "an undulating plateau" for another four decades after that. This in spite of the fact that world oil discoveries peaked in the 1960's and have declined every decade since then, and the fact that world oil usage continues to increase every decade. And each year or so another oil producing country goes into permanent production decline.

Warren  06/27/2008 11:09 PM Report

In February 2007 Yergin was on CNBC and told Joe Kiernan that in 2007 oil would be $57 to $58.00 a barrel and that the next year we would be looking at a few dollars less to around $54.00 a barrel.

In August of 2007 Joe Kiernan on CNBC asked him if he had changed his view on what a fair price would be for a barrel he said no that the price for 07 should stay in the low 70's and in 08 would go several dollars lower to the mid sixties as a result of a different supply demand balance.

Yergin has been consistently wrong and is never called out in this. He is always behind the curve.