Someone once observed that attending an ASPO-USA conference is like trying to drink from a firehose – there’s just so much information, so many amazing people, so many sessions, so much to do that it can be overwhelming as well as stimulating, engaging and delightful.
Helping to RUN an ASPO-USA conference is a little like drinking from two Firehoses at once, only vastly more enjoyable. Still, the only time I remember getting that little sleep was with my newborns. The combination of absorbing all the amazing information and also acting as host to more than 300 guests, working with speakers, running sessions and dealing with any difficulties that arise is exciting, enjoyable, wonderful and exhausting.
I have come to accept that I will not touch my blog during ASPO week – I can no more blog than I can sleep, eat regular meals or swim across the English Channel during Conference week.
Still, I got a good long drink of water out of my firehoses. The best things (from my idiosyncratic point of view) about the conference were Robert Rapier’s presentation on the distinction between what we could do and what we will do in regards to climate change and peak oil; Naomi Davis’s stunningly delivered vision of the reanimation of her urban community, and watching Angelina Galliteva get her behind handed to her by Charlie Hall when she radically overstated the potential of solar.
My greatest moment of pride and joy was Wes Jackson’s keynote – I worked hard to make that happen, and it was everything I hoped it would be.
A lot of the really good stuff happens after hours at meals and in the nearest bar, and this year was no different. The Zombie-Fightin’ Women of the Apocalypse didn’t quite work out – late hours meant that we were followed to the bar by a large crowd of guys, so instead of a bull session, it turned into a bash. All in all, it was a great bash, though. Maybe next year for an all-female event.
I’m still re-combobulating after the conference, and the next month represents the final countdown to my book deadline. So while I’m getting my act together, here is my question to the hivemind:
If you were going to change the name of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas to something else (note, I am in no way saying that we are going to do so), what would you change it to? The shift should a. sound professional (we’ve already made all the crude jokes, so you can skip them) and b. reflect and emphasis not on the peak, but on the downslope, which is, after all, more to the point?
Glad to be home,