I think this is the beginnings of an economy based on perpetual growth and fossil fuel energy running headlong into geological energy constraints. Basically I see an undulatory downward path for the rest of my life. From here out, I think any rallies in our economic condition are going to be met with spiking commodity prices that knock us right back down.
Joined: Aug 24, 2004 Posts: 397 Location: United Kingdom, Various
Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 4:39 pm Post subject: What do people think of Campbells revisions on peak?
What do people think of Campbell's revisions on the peak date? He seems to keep moving the date forward. Back in 1991, he predicted 1997. He's also made other revisions since this time, he's moved back from 2010 to 2008 (which is the other direction), but do you think Campbell's previous track record on reliability he's right this time?
I tend to believe there's a lot more positive concensus of opinion from other sources this time around.
Campbell estimated correctly before, with the peak in america's production in the 70's, however I think the revisions of the worlds peak date happened for a few reasons:
Unexpected deep-sea finds: which are now in decline, and only offset the peak date by a few years.
Advancements in technology have also contributed to the rise in the peak date. The fact is that campbell was not really incorrect with his predictions, its just other factors played role in delaying the peak by a few years. His prediction for a peak in 2005 seems most realistic, if it has not already happened already.
Joined: Aug 24, 2004 Posts: 397 Location: United Kingdom, Various
Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 5:03 pm Post subject:
I think the evidence tends to suggest it has. My investments in oil companies have gone up 15% in the past two weeks, netting me a nice big profit. I might CFD oil prices and gear up for another very nice big profit.
If that's the case, I'm staying out of property and living frugally for the next few years. No consumption, I'll probably just have to read and talk to family and friends for entertainment. Actually that doesn't sound so bad. Then when everything goes legs up, I'll get back home and it'll be family survival again, like its always been really.
Joined: Sep 05, 2004 Posts: 205 Location: Washington, DC
Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 6:10 pm Post subject: Peak date
I hate the idea of a specific date... i don't think that is what going to happen at all... I think we'll have a very long and bumpy plateau... There are probably a few more fields out there... along with stuff that is "politically off limits" because people don't like oil wells in their back yard... off the coast of New England (right in the middle of the fishing habitats), the Los Angeles basin, (right in the middle of Hollywood!), etc. But then that bumpy downward decline begins... ouch.
Joined: Aug 24, 2004 Posts: 397 Location: United Kingdom, Various
Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 6:29 pm Post subject:
Yeah but Such, the peak in discovery was 1964. No discoveries since then have compared to it. Even if we did make some big discoveries now, they would probably only have a minimal affect on peak.
We currently find 1 barrel for every 4 that we consume, and it's getting worse.
Marco's; I doubt its even 1 barrel discovered anymore. In these days its more like .5/4 or maybe 1/10 - being that all the finds are so small and insignificant that they barely amount to crap. All the large pools of the sweet crude are either in decline or just peaking.
It is estimated that there are about 2,200Gb of oil on this poor earth, and to ASPO's figures we have used about 1,000Gb of it. And that stated during their last newsletter months ago. With the largest use of oil at all time, this level of sustainability wont last for long. I really feel we have either just reached the peak in production, or that it is coming dangerously close.
Campbell was right in his predictions in the 60's, and he really cant be all to far off with his predictions with the world - however the world is a much bigger place, and I really feel there were a few factors that delayed the peak and gave us all some more time. But anything we do now really cant delay the peak all to much longer, and its going to be all about fighting for whats left. Sucks, doesn't it?
Skateari - whose assumption is it that "its going to be about fighting over what's left ? I know it's a common assumption but what is its basis ?
There's an entirely different case to be made for how things are going to pan out:
Those countries whose industries are too schlerotic to face the dual imperatives to change energy source (climate impacts and peak-driven prices) will cling to a declining resource and are going to lose out, while those who willingly make the turn toward sustainability will gain very large export markets across developing nations.
Denmark, having headed into wind power in the '70s, is an example of the latter.
With respect, I think the assumption you voice is actually a central bit of the fossil fuel corporations' propaganda : that sustainable energy is necessarily more expensive than fossil energy.
Fortunately, given a level playing field on energy subsidies and R&D spending, the sustainables are demonstrably cheaper, particularly as we pass over peak oil.
Campbell estimated correctly before, with the peak in america's production in the 70's, however I think the revisions of the worlds peak date happened for a few reasons:
skateari wrote:
Campbell was right in his predictions in the 60's, and he really cant be all to far off with his predictions with the world
You're probably thinking of M. King Hubbert.
Such wrote:
I hate the idea of a specific date... i don't think that is what going to happen at all... I think we'll have a very long and bumpy plateau...
Bumpy plateau or steady turning point, either way, we'll never know the exact peak, and we wont notice it pass us by. As many commentators have observed, we probably couldn't tell peak until a few years after it had past us...
Expect obscure proximate causes, expect plausible deniability, expect bizarre explanations from media and perhaps politicians. The 'received view' will be that whatever is being blamed for the downturn in oil production is temporary, and that oil production will pick up again soon enough.
And sure enough it will, from time to time. Every small bit of positive news will deserve prominent media coverage. This is the fabled rough plateau.
I think Such's point is clear enough - the actual date doesn't mean a lot. The peak date is just the time we can expect much more of the stuff we see now to start happening, at a much more prolific rate (wars, famines, big businesses going bankrupt). Further, sooner or later bigger things will need to happen to keep the oil markets in equilibrium... We shall see what these are in time...
With regard to Campbells revisions... I think he underestimated unconventional sources back in the 90's, but don't forget that the definitions of what counts as oil has been changed. Back in 91 he was forecasting conventional, which only included a very narrow set of oils. I've heard some say that this narrow type of oils actually did peak in 2000, but I really don't know. You've probably read a lot about how OPEC has plenty of sour to offer, but cant find anymore sweet for the market. Well, again, I don't know for sure, but maybe the sours we are currently relying on weren't even included in Campbell's earlier estimate.
The other topic often discussed with regard to Campbell moving the peak is the rate at which it can move over the short term. Each month his newsletter comes out, and each month seems to offer a new date for peak. The emphasis upon the exact date is for me unfortunate, yet he feels compelled to report that peak as the mathematical outcome of his model. The frequency with which the peak date moves with new data suggests that the model carries a large sensitivity to error, so we should keep that in mind when we consider the consequences of the model. Therefore, I would rather think of the Campbell model as providing evidence for a peak sometime this decade, and contrast this with say, the PFC model, which also seems excellent, but suggests a peak next decade.
The fact that any one model has error just reinforces to us that we are wise to seek out many sources of oil depletion modelling...[/quote]
Joined: Aug 12, 2004 Posts: 1180 Location: England
Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 2:07 am Post subject:
Colorado-Valley wrote:
A coal-industry guy asked me today how we were going to get all these wind turbines to site when we don't have any more oil.
Hmmm ... good question.
He misses the point, peak oil isn't NO OIL! Even ASPO forecast oil will go way beyond 2050.....(according to that nice colourful graph anyway ) _________________ Peak Oil? crap Happens !
Skateari - whose assumption is it that "its going to be about fighting over what's left ? I know it's a common assumption but what is its basis ?
It is my assumption, based on whats going on in the world today and what we have already done. America is already 'fighting for whats left' (read: http://www.rense.com/general34/realre.htm ). We are already in Iraq because of oil, or maybe lets say its not about oil. Its about economics, and its reliance on oil. Our government, as you know relies on our cheap energy to keep going. And to remain the worlds 'super-power', means taking military action in the middle east where essentially the only oil remains. We are in Iraq to keep our system of government afloat in a crisis like peak oil. Even if we end up going to war to keep the dollar the national standard, we are still going to war.
Do you understand what Bush plans to do once re-elected? Not just a immediate draft (now revised M & F from 18-34?) but also a war with Iran, North Korea, Syria, China, and the Caucasus region of Russia. If you can understand economics, and peak oil, and if you can understand why now so many countries want payback for our selfish use of resources, then you could understand why war will be inevitable. Sure, maybe Kerry will be elected, which will surely seal the fate for a US recession/depression. Many countries want to end the free ride that America has enjoyed the last 30 years, and by hopping on the Euro bandwagon, and dropping the dollar it could really do that for them. And really that is Bush's biggest fear. Not terrorism, not WMD, but the collapse of the American economy.
Soft_Landing; yes, thank for the correction. I was thinking of Dr. Hubbert, sometimes at the end of a long, tiresome night of research I tend to get names mixed up But still the same fact remains, if I got the dudes name wrong or not, there have been a lot of uncalled for factors coming into play that really changed the outcome of the peak. LNG's, and the sour crudes you mentioned above were not mentioned in his earlier predictions, and new technology really delayed the peak a few years too.
What is important is: My Grandmother will have a peaceful passing away, My parents will have a comfortable high energy retirement (but diminishing over time); I will not have a retirement as I will have to work more for less and less payback; and the children of today will pay a high price.
"My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel" is a valid bell curve of the times.
Look into the eyes of the children. Their lifespan will be cut short if we squander what resources we have left.
Joined: May 21, 2004 Posts: 198 Location: East Coast USA
Posted: Sun Oct 31, 2004 2:33 pm Post subject:
The fact is that Campbell has always been one of the more pessimistic peak oil predictors. He has regularly underestimated in the past the total amount of ultimately recoverable crude oil in the ground. That should not detract in any way from all of the other valuable contributions that he has made to the field.
His latest estimates, however, are converging with those of the the other Peak Oilers, and they seem pretty credible to me. _________________ www.searchingforthetruth.com
The truth that is suppressed by friends is the readiest weapon of the enemy.
- Robert Louis Stevenson
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
)
But still the same fact remains, if I got the dudes name wrong or not, there have been a lot of uncalled for factors coming into play that really changed the outcome of the peak. LNG's, and the sour crudes you mentioned above were not mentioned in his earlier predictions, and new technology really delayed the peak a few years too.
