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.
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 11:33 pm Post subject: Re: Peak Oil: The Big Fizzle
It would be nice to see Campbells 1990 peak estimate and following production schedule matched up against reality since then, similar to how you listed Hubberts global oil production estimate.
Thats it. Although the last time I checked his 1989 work, I could have sworn his 2007 production rate was even lower than what shows on your graph.
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 1:04 am Post subject: Re: Peak Oil: The Big Fizzle
TonyPrep wrote:
It's amazing how those who are desperate to believe in an infinite earth warp and distort the general views around here so that they can ridicule them.
The only one talking about an "infinite earth" here is you. You're hypocritically invoking a straw man while you complain about straw men.
Quote:
The only certainty is that production of the resources we rely on will decline some day.
Certainly liquids will decline someday, which is the issue at hand. And everyone agrees with that, including everybody in this thread, as well as Lynch, O'dell, CERA and Yergin. So why are you even bringing it up? You're not telling us anything we don't know, or haven't accepted. You're not debating with people who believe in "infinite petroleum". You're debating with people who are skeptical about the predictions and FUD that peak liquids is imminent. We don't hold that position because we believe in abiotic oil, or an "infinite earth". We hold that position because the peak oil cassandras have been wrong so many times before. And, in fact, they are being proved wrong yet again, as we speak, by the rising liquids production reported by the IEA.
Now, of course, you're going to say "Well, the cassandras will be right someday. Liquids will peak." But the occurrence of peak oil doesn't prove the cassandras right. It proves everybody right, because we all predict that liquids will peak someday. The only way for the cassandras to be "right" is for peak liquids to occur right now. And that's not going to happen. Therefore the late-peakists, like myself, are the ones who are being proved right. _________________ Think outside the petri dish.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 2050 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 3:42 am Post subject: Re: Peak Oil: The Big Fizzle
JohnDenver wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
It's amazing how those who are desperate to believe in an infinite earth warp and distort the general views around here so that they can ridicule them.
The only one talking about an "infinite earth" here is you. You're hypocritically invoking a straw man while you complain about straw men.
My apologies to killthehumans, if he doesn't believe in an infinite earth. If he doesn't believe that then what is his problem? Limits will be hit, it's only a matter of time, with an unknown timescale. But it's certainly true that many people (maybe most people) would like there to be no limits to what resources we can extract for our use or to what pollution our environoment can absorb without ill effects. If people accepted limits, I doubt there'd be much argument here, except on a technical basis.
JohnDenver wrote:
Quote:
The only certainty is that production of the resources we rely on will decline some day.
Certainly liquids will decline someday, which is the issue at hand. And everyone agrees with that, including everybody in this thread, as well as Lynch, O'dell, CERA and Yergin. So why are you even bringing it up?
Because there appear to be a few people here who don't believe in the limits. By the way, I've never heard or read Lynch admit to peak occuring some day. Could you provide a link, because I would genuinely be interested.
JohnDenver wrote:
You're not telling us anything we don't know, or haven't accepted. You're not debating with people who believe in "infinite petroleum". You're debating with people who are skeptical about the predictions and FUD that peak liquids is imminent. We don't hold that position because we believe in abiotic oil, or an "infinite earth". We hold that position because the peak oil cassandras have been wrong so many times before. And, in fact, they are being proved wrong yet again, as we speak, by the rising liquids production reported by the IEA.
But, your last sentence implies that since predictions have been wrong in the past, they must always be wrong, implying oil will never peak. It is, of course, erroneous logic. And the most vociferous proponent of a past peak, recently, has been your very self, in this very thread.
JohnDenver wrote:
Now, of course, you're going to say "Well, the cassandras will be right someday. Liquids will peak." But the occurrence of peak oil doesn't prove the cassandras right. It proves everybody right, because we all predict that liquids will peak someday. The only way for the cassandras to be "right" is for peak liquids to occur right now. And that's not going to happen. Therefore the late-peakists, like myself, are the ones who are being proved right.
Being proved right? In what way are you "being" proved right? The figures show a bumpy plateau, and many peak voices have been predicting a peak by 2012, so I'd hardly say that you are being proven right. Let me pre-empt your attack on "bumpy plateau"; despite an apparent spike (remember that revisions go on for months and years, and that the November revision was markedly down, by the IEA), it's impossible to say, right now if we have reached a plateau, or whether the last quarter apparent large rise can start a rising trend, just mark a large blip or start a slightly higher plateau.
Your position is well known, JD. It's that you believe natural market forces will make peak oil a non-event, that people will willingly make some lifestyle changes, as energy declines or the energy mi changes, but the economy will trundle on, growing overall until some earth bound limit is reached (either in resources or environment) and then we'll simply start to harness resources from beyond our planet's bounds. However, if we don't progress to that limitless future, then the earthbound limits will be hit and people will have to live in a quite different society. It's the sheer rejection of limits that seems incredible to me.
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:26 am Post subject: Re: Peak Oil: The Big Fizzle
TonyPrep wrote:
My apologies to killthehumans, if he doesn't believe in an infinite earth.
Nobody believes in an infinite earth. Nobody.
TonyPrep wrote:
If he doesn't believe that then what is his problem?
I'm telling you straight out, he doesn't believe in an infinite earth, and neither does anybody else. There's no "if" involved.
TonyPrep wrote:
If people accepted limits, I doubt there'd be much argument here, except on a technical basis.
We all accept that the earth is finite, and we all accept that every resource deriving from the earth is finite. That point is not where we disagree. I'm baffled why you (and others here) keep stubbornly trying to prop up that straw man. I'm telling you, straight out, we've all accepted the limits, and we all agree that liquids will peak and decline.
TonyPrep wrote:
JohnDenver wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
The only certainty is that production of the resources we rely on will decline some day.
Certainly liquids will decline someday, which is the issue at hand. And everyone agrees with that, including everybody in this thread, as well as Lynch, O'dell, CERA and Yergin. So why are you even bringing it up?
Because there appear to be a few people here who don't believe in the limits.
Who? Name one person here who believes that liquids are unlimited and will never peak and decline. You're just making that stuff up. There aren't any such people.
TonyPrep wrote:
By the way, I've never heard or read Lynch admit to peak occuring some day. Could you provide a link, because I would genuinely be interested.
Here you are then:
Mike Lynch wrote:
A peak could occur due to depressed demand (technological innovation or taxes, etc.) but I don't anticipate it any time soon. I think there will be no peak due to geological reasons until at least 2030 and probably 2050, which assumes some "unconventional oil" such as gas to liquids and tar sands, and maybe shale oil.
You're not telling us anything we don't know, or haven't accepted. You're not debating with people who believe in "infinite petroleum". You're debating with people who are skeptical about the predictions and FUD that peak liquids is imminent. We don't hold that position because we believe in abiotic oil, or an "infinite earth". We hold that position because the peak oil cassandras have been wrong so many times before. And, in fact, they are being proved wrong yet again, as we speak, by the rising liquids production reported by the IEA.
But, your last sentence implies that since predictions have been wrong in the past, they must always be wrong, implying oil will never peak.
My last sentence implies no such thing. You're resorting to a straw man again. I have told you EXPLICITLY that I accept that oil will peak someday, and you are simply trying to inject the statement that "oil will never peak" into my mouth in a statement where I said no such thing. The sentence means exactly what it says: peak predictions have been wrong again and again, and are currently being proved wrong yet again.
This is what I'm talking about:
“Never again will we pump more than 82 million barrels.”
-- T. Boone Pickens, 9th August 2004. On the Kudlow and Cramer Show, MSNBC.
“Global oil [production] is 84 million barrels [per day]. I don't believe you can get it any more than 84 million barrels."
-- T. Boone Pickens, addressing the 11th National Clean Cities conference in May 2005.
"I don't believe that you can increase the supply beyond 84 or 85 million barrel as day."
-- T. Boone Pickens, on "CNN In the Money", June 25, 2005.
"Supply is—you‘ve just about had it on supply; 85 million barrels a day world supply is about it. "
-- T. Boone Pickens, on Hardball with Chris Matthews, MSNBC, Aug. 26, 2005
Source
Total garbage. The man is a laughing stock. And, like I said, he's currently being proved wrong. Voila:
TonyPrep wrote:
And the most vociferous proponent of a past peak, recently, has been your very self, in this very thread.
There are two "peaks": conventional oil and liquids. Currently the stats show oil peaked in May 2005, as I pointed out when starting this thread. True, that may not be the ultimate peak, but it serves just fine to show what happens when oil production stops growing for 3 years: basically nothing. Global economic growth continues unimpeded.
TonyPrep wrote:
JohnDenver wrote:
Now, of course, you're going to say "Well, the cassandras will be right someday. Liquids will peak." But the occurrence of peak oil doesn't prove the cassandras right. It proves everybody right, because we all predict that liquids will peak someday. The only way for the cassandras to be "right" is for peak liquids to occur right now. And that's not going to happen. Therefore the late-peakists, like myself, are the ones who are being proved right.
Being proved right? In what way are you "being" proved right? The figures show a bumpy plateau, and many peak voices have been predicting a peak by 2012, so I'd hardly say that you are being proven right. Let me pre-empt your attack on "bumpy plateau"; despite an apparent spike (remember that revisions go on for months and years, and that the November revision was markedly down, by the IEA), it's impossible to say, right now if we have reached a plateau, or whether the last quarter apparent large rise can start a rising trend, just mark a large blip or start a slightly higher plateau.
You're in denial. I'm right because I called out Boone Pickens on his B.S. more than 2 years ago. He's been demonstrably wrong four farking times in a row, and you want to stand up now, and claim he's "right" somehow? You're nuts. He's wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong.
Colin Campbell has called the peak wrong 4 or 5 times already. See COLIN CAMPBELL WRONG AGAIN
As has Deffeyes. See THE MANY WRONG PREDICTIONS OF KEN DEFFEYES
Of course, you're going to fall back on the ol' workhorse of the early-peakists: "They'll all be right someday because oil will peak". But that's incorrect as well. Everyone is predicting that oil will peak someday, therefore, when oil peaks, everyone (including me) will be proved right. Not much glory there. The glory will go to the person who predicted that oil would peak AND correctly predicted the timing. That's not going to be Pickens, Campbell, Simmons or Deffeyes.
TonyPrep wrote:
It's the sheer rejection of limits that seems incredible to me.
Why? We're not locked to the earth any more than Columbus was locked to the Old World. I'm sure it was obvious to the people in 15th century Europe that there was no transcending the limits of Europe. And I'm sure it was obvious to the people of the 19th century that there was no transcending the limits of the earth's atmosphere. Unexpected things happen. Game-changing events. I don't see anything wrong with aiming high, and thinking outside the petri dish. _________________ Think outside the petri dish.
Joined: Apr 06, 2006 Posts: 3615 Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:41 am Post subject: Re: Peak Oil: The Big Fizzle
JohnDenver wrote:
I'm telling you straight out, he doesn't believe in an infinite earth, and neither does anybody else. There's no "if" involved.
You do believe that we'll develop power sources like Solar power satellites though, if you want to nitpick. Or de facto neverending resources like geothermal and nuclear w/U leached from seawater. Not wanting to lock horns, I know you're a long term Cornucoper. Datz kool.
As regards crystal balls, I like dub scratch's comment on your blog entry for Deffeyes:
Quote:
That said, I've learned to take all predictions as pure worthless speculation-- from Kunstler's invading Asian pirates in Seattle to Yergin's oil glut until 2020.....I predict that any prediction out there will not come true.
Many people want a solid date for a peak, probably to raise the alarm - especially with spouses, I think.
Regarding the ASPO timing of peak:
JD wrote:
It also creates a bit of a conflict within the peak movement because Deffeyes is still calling (ridiculously) for a peak on Thanksgiving Day 2005.
Ken did that as a joke. You know,
Freddy's site has some great charts - you need to get a better webmaster though! It's a bit irritating having to zoom in on the page to see details; I wound up drag and dropping the charts onto a photo editor instead - de facto popup windows.
I see you're for a peak in 2013. Tar and corn will let us down, eh? Haven't read all your material there but will.
Interested parties should check out Rembrandt Koppelaar's Primers on Reserve Growth (Part 1,Part 2,Part 3, with Freddy trumpeting that Reserve Growth Rulz! _________________ Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
The Dude Is Not In: Leave A Message After The Beep.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 2050 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 3:33 pm Post subject: Re: Peak Oil: The Big Fizzle
JohnDenver wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
My apologies to killthehumans, if he doesn't believe in an infinite earth.
Nobody believes in an infinite earth. Nobody.
You misunderstand. Those who don't accept the earth's limitations implicitly believe in an infinite earth, whether they explicitly believe that or not. However, you're absolutely wrong that no-one explicitly believes it, there is one prominent NZ climate change denier who believes that resources are infinite, arguing that they are, effectively, human inventions, and human ingenuity is limitless.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 2050 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 3:41 pm Post subject: Re: Peak Oil: The Big Fizzle
JohnDenver wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
By the way, I've never heard or read Lynch admit to peak occuring some day. Could you provide a link, because I would genuinely be interested.
Here you are then:
Mike Lynch wrote:
A peak could occur due to depressed demand (technological innovation or taxes, etc.) but I don't anticipate it any time soon. I think there will be no peak due to geological reasons until at least 2030 and probably 2050, which assumes some "unconventional oil" such as gas to liquids and tar sands, and maybe shale oil.
Thanks for that, JD. When Lynch was active in the Lynch thread, I'd tried to get him to give some estimate but he never acknowledged a peak, the closest was that it would not occur within 60 years. This quote is earlier but does indicate that he might have conceded a peak before his denial became entrenched, though I noticed the guarded terms ("could occur", "due to depressed demand", no geological peak before 2050).
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 2050 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:01 pm Post subject: Re: Peak Oil: The Big Fizzle
JohnDenver wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
JohnDenver wrote:
You're not telling us anything we don't know, or haven't accepted. You're not debating with people who believe in "infinite petroleum". You're debating with people who are skeptical about the predictions and FUD that peak liquids is imminent. We don't hold that position because we believe in abiotic oil, or an "infinite earth". We hold that position because the peak oil cassandras have been wrong so many times before. And, in fact, they are being proved wrong yet again, as we speak, by the rising liquids production reported by the IEA.
But, your last sentence implies that since predictions have been wrong in the past, they must always be wrong, implying oil will never peak.
My last sentence implies no such thing. You're resorting to a straw man again. I have told you EXPLICITLY that I accept that oil will peak someday, and you are simply trying to inject the statement that "oil will never peak" into my mouth in a statement where I said no such thing. The sentence means exactly what it says: peak predictions have been wrong again and again, and are currently being proved wrong yet again.
This is what I'm talking about:
“Never again will we pump more than 82 million barrels.”
-- T. Boone Pickens, 9th August 2004. On the Kudlow and Cramer Show, MSNBC.
“Global oil [production] is 84 million barrels [per day]. I don't believe you can get it any more than 84 million barrels."
-- T. Boone Pickens, addressing the 11th National Clean Cities conference in May 2005.
"I don't believe that you can increase the supply beyond 84 or 85 million barrel as day."
-- T. Boone Pickens, on "CNN In the Money", June 25, 2005.
"Supply is—you‘ve just about had it on supply; 85 million barrels a day world supply is about it. "
-- T. Boone Pickens, on Hardball with Chris Matthews, MSNBC, Aug. 26, 2005
Source
Total garbage. The man is a laughing stock. And, like I said, he's currently being proved wrong. Voila:
If you don't mean to use the fact of past failed predictions to prove something, then why mention it at all? You must have thought it worthwhile and so I took the implication that occurred to me. It's the same reason why Yergin and other deniers bleat on about past failed predictions; to try to build a case in the minds of their audience that any predictions of peak should be ignored. The clear implication is that peak will never be a worry.
If you're trying to make some point other than putting down some history of failed predictions, let's hear it.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 2050 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:06 pm Post subject: Re: Peak Oil: The Big Fizzle
JohnDenver wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
And the most vociferous proponent of a past peak, recently, has been your very self, in this very thread.
There are two "peaks": conventional oil and liquids. Currently the stats show oil peaked in May 2005, as I pointed out when starting this thread. True, that may not be the ultimate peak, but it serves just fine to show what happens when oil production stops growing for 3 years: basically nothing. Global economic growth continues unimpeded.
Because of growing all liquids production and draw down of stocks. Your interesting observation has no value since overall oil products consumption has continued to increase. However, you, and others, keep pulling up straw men that most posters here have categorically stated peak has already occurred, when they haven't done that; only you have done that.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 2050 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:15 pm Post subject: Re: Peak Oil: The Big Fizzle
JohnDenver wrote:
Of course, you're going to fall back on the ol' workhorse of the early-peakists: "They'll all be right someday because oil will peak".
Wrong again, that is not my style. What I fall back on is reality, that the earth has limits. Talk of failed past predictions is meaningless.
JohnDenver wrote:
But that's incorrect as well. Everyone is predicting that oil will peak someday, therefore, when oil peaks, everyone (including me) will be proved right. Not much glory there. The glory will go to the person who predicted that oil would peak AND correctly predicted the timing. That's not going to be Pickens, Campbell, Simmons or Deffeyes.
I hope you are able to bask in your glory; personally, who gets this particular prediction right is utterly meaningless.
JohnDenver wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
It's the sheer rejection of limits that seems incredible to me.
Why? We're not locked to the earth any more than Columbus was locked to the Old World. I'm sure it was obvious to the people in 15th century Europe that there was no transcending the limits of Europe. And I'm sure it was obvious to the people of the 19th century that there was no transcending the limits of the earth's atmosphere. Unexpected things happen. Game-changing events. I don't see anything wrong with aiming high, and thinking outside the petri dish.
So you are expecting unexpected things to happen? To rely on the human project being able to capture resources from outside our planet is a huge reliance, in my opinion. To resist changes that could help us live sustainably on the planet we currently inhabit is very dangerous. If we hit peak energy before we've got these massive projects (that aren't even being officially planned for) underway, would certainly ring the death knell for such dreams. And even if we managed to start such projects, there would be no guarantee of success or time-scales, so they could end up being an enormous waste of energy and other resources, that could have been better employed towards sustainable infrastructure here on earth.
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:24 pm Post subject: Re: Peak Oil: The Big Fizzle
JohnDenver wrote:
There are two "peaks": conventional oil and liquids. Currently the stats show oil peaked in May 2005, as I pointed out when starting this thread. True, that may not be the ultimate peak, but it serves just fine to show what happens when oil production stops growing for 3 years: basically nothing. Global economic growth continues unimpeded.
I hope you are buying into the "opportunities" present in the current irrational sell of in the global markets.
We all know global economic growth will continue unimpeded forever and ever. PO be damned.
In fact I along with you think this is such a certainty (regards unimpeded economic growth) and the current "buying opportunities" available. That I would suggest MAXIMUM gearing into the market.
If thats what you really believe of course? Or you could just be blowing hot air... or perhaps even more simply a myopic world view where you wake up ride your bike see food on the shelves, cars on the road and purr like a cat that everything is A ok.
But hang in there JD PO is just barely, in it's very initial stages just starting to be felt. _________________ "Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box."
-Italian Proverb
Joined: Oct 16, 2004 Posts: 1482 Location: Appalachian Foothills of Virginia
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 5:50 pm Post subject: Re: Peak Oil: The Big Fizzle
[quote="JohnDenver"]
TonyPrep wrote:
Total garbage. The man is a laughing stock. And, like I said, he's currently being proved wrong. Voila:
What figures are you using; CO? C+C? AL? What was Pickens referring to?
You've attempted unsuccessfully to whitewash and mix up different metrics in the past, and it seems like you are still at it. You also quote the last quarter's data as if it is canon, when you know that these figures are almost always reduced in a couple of months.
And "All liquids" is almost a worthless measurement, as so much energy is put into making ethanol, refining tar sands, etc that the EROEI's are usually less than 2, which means diesel is consumed and/or natural gas will be rerouted from heating homes, powering generators, etc.
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14
Page 14 of 14
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
