It would be nice if our own broadcasting network (the CBC) ensured that the documentaries at least start with factual information. In stating that the first oil well was drilled in the US is incorrect. Actually the first well was drilled in southern Ontario near Oil Springs about a year prior to the first drilled in the United States. Also, both of these wells were predated by 10 years when a drilled well was completed in Aspheron Peninsula north-east of Baku in Asia.

Given the error in this initial information, it begs the question, how much actual research was done in the production of this film. By the way, this information is readily available on the internet.

This was the first time I had seen this documentary - very concise and complete. For more information on Peak Oil responses for Toronto, visit www.postcarbontoronto.org.

It's clear that something must be done. Using oil as our main source of energy is not only bad for the environment but this documentary also showed that using oil too much too fast could ruin our whole way of life. This is why people must support the Liberals and their carbon tax plan in the upcoming election, not cut tax on gas to encourage consumption, which Harper has done. taxing carbon will help our economy move away from oil dependency and lessen the damage that will occur when the world does run out of oil, which will happen.

Although the peak oil theorists are right about peak oil, they are wrong about their apocalyptic scenarios. Renewable power well take over from our sources of energy. Take solar power as one example. "Solar energy use is doubling every two years. Doubling every two years means multiplying by 1,000 in 20 years. At that rate we'll meet 100 percent of our energy needs in 20 years.

See http://www.livescience.com/environment/080219-kurzweil-solar.html

Unfortunately, the final comments on the program...our politicians are NOT even thinking about this issus is true.
also the connection between carbon and Global warming was NOT explored in the least... e.g. With Global warming come larger more dangerous weather events LIKE the recent huricane Ike. There was no estimate of what the cost of Global warming will be from the increased frequency of such disasters .

There was aslo no discussion about the effects of Global warming CAUSED BY OUR BURNING OF CARBON and the impending food disasters caused by the huge changes in weather paterns across the globe and the disasterous effect those changes wil have on food production.

Finally - There exists a relatively efficient infrastructure for distributing natural gas to homes in Canada. Home heating is an aABSOLUTE NECESSITY. Our government is allowing the oil industry to squander our natural gas reserves in exploiting the Tar Sands. There has been no discussion about the cost of heating homes and cost of discarding of the gas distrubution network prematurely, and the cost of what will have to replace that delivery system.

Finally, I find the whole political scene in Canada to be a joke. Harper will go down in history as a criminal, as will the government of Manitoba (my province)

Have studied this subject for two years. I know that Ontario has fifty percent nuclear and will be maintaining it. France has 80 percent nuclear and now as Britian on stream to renew their nuclear. There has just been agreement for India to go nuclear. I know it will take time to increase it but it has proven as safe as anything else and is emission free. Rfer to the Power to Save the World.

Let's face it, lots of factors influence the price of oil. Don't even try to figure it out. Denial on Peak Oil has to stop. Let's all try t agree with the geologists, that there is only a finite amount of easily accessible oil in the ground. Prepare for hard times ahead, because there are too many people in high places who want to extend the status quo instead of pioneering in new sustainable directions.

Oil: Apocalypse Now? is an excellent documentary that outlines the highlights (or, lowlights, if you prefer) of the world oil situation. It is sad that this is essentially the same information that has been known for many years but has been universally ignored by both the willfully ignorant and the corrupt, and hidden from the majority through distraction and misinformation.

The pleas (and sometimes screaming) of those who understand the impending crisis does little to sway those in power. The only hope is to gain the opinion of the majority that alternative energy sources (such as solar and wind) is in the best interest of everyone and is the only economically viable long term solution. The first step of this process is to drive public awareness. In this, Oil: Apocalypse Now is an excellent tool. It should be repeatedly broadcast, along with similar stories, until the message is fully disseminated and understood.

What a terrifying film! I find it hard to believe that we could be so conflicted in our assessment of the 'facts' about oil. The filmmaker stressed that OPEC may be overestimating their reserves and in response to this concern, oil executives reassure us that technology will allow us to drill in new areas to make up the diference. Recently the Republicans chanted 'drill baby drill' at the RNC. It's as if the only concern over oil was whether or not we have enough and where it comes from! Why did the word 'environment' not appear until the final 30 seconds of the documentary? Every single day we are bombarded with facts about global warming and so even if OPEC is right and there are 100-150 years of oil left, it would be suicide to burn it. As for our ability to do the right thing, I think that Churchill's decision to 'let the people decide' is outdated because the people of today have proven to have an insatible appetite for any ridiculous SUV that's put in front of us. Why are there so many giant cars on the road if we are so smart? The answer of course, is that we're far more suceptible to advertising than we care to admit. I'm flabbergasted by the car ads that appeal to our need to 'look sexy & successful', or that our commute should resemble a car rally through the Welsh countryside. Personally, I think if someone is relying on a car to be sexy, then that someone should look in the mirror for some other self-improvement projects. Please tell me where I can buy an affordable electric car. I don't care if it doesn't do 0-60 in 4 seconds or that some teenage boy might think it's not as cool as his dad's Hummer. I bet there are lots of us that would love to kick the oil habit if we had more alternatives than a bike or a bus.

The world consumes a billion bls every 12 days.... do the math. Think in this context every time you see the headlines about some potentially huge undeveloped area.

Yes we need to keep looking, but we also need to change our behavour and start consuming less.

Higher prices will provide a solution and the incentive to conserve.... The biggest consumer the US gulps 21 million of the 86 million/ day... But the focus there is on finding ways to push the price down and find villians. If the solutions will not be attempted untill the problem is acknowldged.

I am not shocked by the gasoline/oil supply. I am assuming Natural Gas/Propane is riding the heels of the oil decline? True?

great documentary!

The documentary misses the key point (as is required in order to come to a sensational conclusion about this topic). That is the following: how much will it cost to get the next amount of oil? Stated another way, how much oil can one extract, in the whole world, for between $8 and $9 a barrel cost? How much between $9 and $10? How much between $25 and $26?

Once you seriously ask this question, you see that the "peak oil" theorists are actually making a strong, and utterly unproven assertion: that as you increase the amount of money that you are prepared to pay to extract the oil, the amount that is available to extract over that dollar range decreases. If it doesn't decrease, then the price of oil just rises gradually until alternatives become price competitive. That is, there's no disaster unless there is a drop-off. You have to actually be unable to get more oil, even if you're willing to pay more.

This is no longer a political question, it's a straight geological and economic question. And it's one that the makers of the documentary never seriously face. They dance around it a bit, so that they can seem like they're treating it seriously, but the possibility of increasing availability at higher price ranges is always dismissed for some reason, but never for any truly convincing reason.

For example, you can find geologists who will insist that oil is running out fast. You ask them if they mean all oil, or only "conventional" oil (defined conveniently as oil that costs less than a certain amount to extract), and the camera is already off. Or they think that "unconventional" (i.e. all of the oil that is left, no matter what the quantity at various costs is) oil is very limited, but they're wildly contrary to the general, honest opinion of professional geologists, particularly those who are actively involved in still extracting oil, much of it increasingly in lucrative classes that would earlier have been called "unconventional".

The economists -- so derided in the film -- can use another measure: are people who invest in oil doing so with an expectation that, at some time in the future, the price will be very high? The simple answer is no. Generally, the people who are willing to put (often their) money on the line are both the world's primary experts in this assessment, and entirely accountable for incorrect decisions. There is huge uncertainty and risk in oil markets, particularly because the price can be so sensitive to political events (likely the primary driver of the recent price spike, although the developing world is becoming wealthy more quickly than the consensus had expected, and this has been a large driver). And yet, these people, on the whole, act as though the price of oil will not reach towards an infinite price curve technically required in a "running out" scenario. They all act as though the technical question of "how much is left to extract at various price points" has a real answer, in the rock, different than is required for catastrophic peak oil scenarios. A conspiracy is implausible, since these people will all lose their money and their jobs if they are very wrong.

In short, the scare scenario rests on a technical question which the peak oil group treat as solved in their favour, while the available evidence from the experts displays an overall assessment by people with their chips in the game that contradicts this assessment of the technical reality. Oil use will of course reach a peak, just as coal did (remember that?), as it rises in price enough that it is replaced by a superior technology, despite its infrastructure advantages as the incumbent. This will not be a catastrophe, this will be progress.

If you want to have a fear, fear that oil will not run out, and we'll instead have to deal with increasing environmental costs that are hard to contain, with the very slowly increasing dollar price a relatively minor impediment.

Nuclear power is not really a good long term solution at this time Gordon. Although it has been relatively safe in operation there are two major problems. The first is the high cost of building reactors. The bigger problem is the disposal and storage of the waste generated by the process. At this point in time this problem has not been solved and will present long term negative environmental consequences if a solution is not found. To increase this waste problem by building more nuclear power plants is only shifting our problems. It might be considered as a short term stop gap measure but should not be seen as the answer to our long term power requirements.

I am the producer of this documentary. David's point that it is only a matter of price is incorrect as far as i'm concerned. Oil comes out from deep in the ground under its own pressure. When that pressure drops it has to be pumped out, the rate at which it can be pumped is determined by the rate at which it collects around the bottom of the well. The so called energy return on investment means that at some point it becomes energetically pointless to continue to get the oil out. These geological factors mean that conventional oil production will peak.

All geologists agree there are vast reserves of unconventional oil, but the amount of energy it takes to get this out is huge. It is forecast that Alberta will produce 3 million barrels a day of oil by 2015 - to do this will require 15% of Canadian natural gas production. As far as economists - they are not putting their own money on the line - it is other people's money - furthermore geologists understand oil production far better than they ever will.

Chris Smith - I hope you are right about solar, but replacing the 700 million cars powered by gasoline is going to be an enormous task.

Andrew Soon -Arguing over where the first well was drilled is not particularly useful, the Drake Well is recognised as the first commercial well. The research in the film is totally reliable, if you are interested in this subject there is a conference of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil in Sacramento next week where we could discuss your concerns at length.

ll Canadians should read a book that came out last fall I think ...called "STUPID TO THE LAST DROP" amazing facts and information that will scare Canadians half to death !!

GO TIDAL ENERGY!

Great, poignant documentary Andrew, and I truly think one of the solutions to Peak Oil is tidal (current) energy.

If the world is serious about energy shortages & reducing dependence on foreign oil & GHG emissions, then by a long shot one of the most promising energy sources is in the tidal currents sloshing by maritime shores and major river estuaries.

Tidal (current) energy has the following remarkable advantages: it is predictable (i.e. FIRM), it has much higher energy density-potential than wind or solar (e.g. sea water is 832 times as dense as air), there are many excellent tidal current resource sites nearby to grid-hookups and population centres on both maritime coasts (and worldwide), it is non-polluting and has the lowest enviro-footprint relative to other large-generation energy technologies, and the concepts or tidal technologies now emerging worldwide are proven. All that remains to fully seat this technology is the political will to support it, and all you have to do is understand how aggressively the UK is working to seat tidal energy, for electricity and billions in jobs and exports, to comprehend the scope of this emerging technology. Check out this industry association: Ocean Renewable Energy Group: oreg.ca for more industry news;
Sincerely- Michael Maser,
Blue Energy International (www.bluenergy.com)

I have been interested in this subject for a few years. Thank you CBC for showing this film during election time. I only wish that this issue was getting more attention in the election campaign and in the media. I hope this film has opened up the eyes of more Canadians. Maybe the CBC will also show a documentary on the environmental effects of the oil sands to show the dirty side of our thirst for oil.

May I ask why extremely toxic to life technologies such as petroleum, coal, nuclear, and biofuels are adopted by world governments, while the unlimited, free energy invented by Nikola Tesla and other scientists are suppressed? Back in 1931, Nikola Tesla had already invented an electric car that could reach ninety km/h, and had also designed power stations that could harness energy from the Earth. This energy is unlimited and it has immense power for it is the same energy that glues the atoms together. Quantum Physics describes this energy as "black mass" because it is invisible, but it does not mean it is not there. Did Emerson invented electricity or merely discovered it? Unfortunately, when Tesla presented this energy to J.P. Morgan he was not interested in a free energy, and refused to finance the project. Due to the actions of a powerful , but without vision , man the world now is seventy percent polluted, facing global warming, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq which are consuming trillions of dollars and robbing the economy of this money. This money could replace all the combustion engine cars in the entire world. The same thing happened to the EV1, back in 1996. This carbon free vehicle was taken out of production by General Motors in complicity with OPEC countries and the US Government.

Presently, global economies are driven by greediness. This greediness not only is destroying the global economy, but our planet. Humanity cannot live without a healthy, well balanced natural world, for we too are Nature; we are the Earth. Whatever we do to the planet we do it to ourselves.

In addition, the rain forests continue to be reduced in size to supply the world's population of six billion people. These forests not only produce massive amounts of oxygen but absorb the carbon mankind is spewing into the atmosphere. Here is the reason why the Ice-Caps are melting faster than predicted. This will in turn warm the temperature of the Oceans' currents affecting the Gulf Stream. Recent research has discovered that the Gulf Stream regulates the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere. In Nature every atom is interlinked, like in a net; whatever is inculcated on one part the whole of the planet suffers the ripples too.

In a mere a hundred years mankind is desecrating the Earth that took billions of years to become an ark of life. Do we wish to see our planet follow the destiny of Mars? Very seldom products and goods are invented with Nature in mind. Are we going to continue on "The Road Most Travelled" or is it time to stop indulging our egos, and think outside the Corporate box?