If...+The+Oil+Runs+Out


 * Title:** If... The Oil Runs Out
 * Director:** Bren Simson
 * Release Year:** 2006


 * What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

The film attempts to show what will occur socially when oil starts to become commercially scarce. It focuses mainly on rising gasoline prices and the spiderweb of effects it could have on daily lives, business, and consumer life styles. As the film follows a family through their lives, it emphasizes the distress they experience in transitioning to a lifestyle with limited oil consumption. As a side plot, it also shows how riskier ventures become more and more cost-effective in concern to oil prospecting, drilling, and acquisition.


 * Who are they key social actors and stakeholders in the film?**

The main social actors are represented by the family followed in the film. They are a middle class family living in a suburban area, who are represented as having the most standard of American lives. The things they hold at stake are their way of life, careers, social interactions, family stability, and standard of living. Also highlighted upon are those working and looking to go out, find and acquire more oil who have their entire career at stake.


 * What does the film convey about the matrix of factors that contribute to our dependence on oil?**

For many areas of the US, the entirety of daily lives revolve around the consumption of oil. We have grown accustomed to oil and many have never known a life without oil. Oil underlies the behavior of consumption in the US in many different ways. In going and traveling to a market place, a person relies on gasoline to fuel their car to get there. In purchasing goods, the prices depend highly on the cost of transporting them along their entire production line. For maintaining a household, the cost of electricity is highly dependent on the price of oil. On top of all these things, Americans have set up an infrastructure across the nation that is dependent on affordable fuel. Modern day people have just not had to deal with needing to ration out their consumption of oil, because it has always been portrayed as something that's unlimited.


 * What does the film convey about the matrix of problems caused by our dependence on oil?**

The economy is tied up in oil, and oil is an inelastic product for that reason. Rising prices are taken and dealt with, no matter what. No tolerance exists for a supply disruption; when a disruption does occur, it turns into a crisis.There are no back up plans for people to turn to in the case that changes need to occur. People are left to fend for themselves and take the initiative in doing what is best for themselves, and not necessarily the greater populace. The US is set up to experience a considerable amount of civil unrest with the policies and procedures in place to deal with oil shortages. Riskier business strategies are being taken also, because of the potential payout they offer, but these also lead to greater losses when they fail to payout. The nation is competitive for oil because it is important to secure our economic well being. One particular sound-byte of the film claimed that "every war in the past century has been fought over energy." This is a strong statement, but it certainly has it's weight. Though large scale wars aren't really looked at within the film except as a reference, the plot played out does show what lengths humans will go to in order to secure their own well being and way of life, no matter who else it hurts.


 * What does the film convey about the matrix of effects that would be mobilized by a shift away from oil?**

A shift away isn't so much addressed in the film as is a forced removal of the oil. The difference in the way people react is significant.

The blanket statement made by the film is that without oil, there will be crises. Civil unrest will be rampant, moral codes will be violated more frequently, and a 'disconnect' will occur between individuals and their community.People will resist the change away from oil, especially when they are left on their own to figure out how else to get by. As people begin to feel disadvantaged and that their standard of living is slipping away from them, their 'need' for oil as a source of that living standard will increase to the point that they'll see others very easily as competitors for that resource. Rifts between communities will become stronger as individuals begin to feel that their needs for the resource is greater than another's.

Cities will either become more compact, or they will differentiate so as to try to be self-sustaining areas. The operations of daily lives will be completely will be completely altered. Also, previous long term plans will have to be entirely rethought; an example being that people will be spending a considerable portion of their retirement in order to deal with the change in daily life necessary to cope with the shift.


 * What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**

The film did a good job showing that tension will definitely increase when faced with a shift away from oil. That and that people will be encouraged to do things they would never have considered before (examples being drilling of ANWR and hoarding/stealing fuel).


 * What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?**

I feel that the film took a very extreme view on the topic, and showed a situation where we pretend the world is the same for the next several years and the only thing that changes is the supply of oil. This was disheartening because I kept feeling that none of these examples were realistic in the way they are portrayed; the examples are simply too extreme to be taken seriously. The examples do show at least the direction in which oil dependence could take us. However, the film was unnecessarily doomsday-like.


 * What kinds of corrective action are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.**

The film doesn't state any suggested corrective actions, though it does imply them by its straightforward refusal to build them into the storyline. For one, the infrastructure for a shift from oil needs to be set up. The way in which cities and communities operate is going to change drastically, and this needs to be taken into account and prepared for.


 * What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references, explaining what your learned from each reference.**

I was compelled to look further into the ANWR oil controversy, and found my information on [|Wikipedia] considering that it is a very broad topic and media coverage is widely spread. The film at one point made note to the fact that the US doesn't have an energy policy, but instead an energy complacency. This struck me as being compelling, and not having a good understanding of what the actual energy policy is, I decided to look it up. Previously I had only heard second (or greater) hand tales on the energy policy, but now I've seen aspects of it myself (such as the [|Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007], [|Energy Policy Act of 2005] and the [|Act of 2005's bill]) and discussion on it from the [|White House] and [|Wikipedia].