[copious.abundance]

Hat tip to JD for the find:
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2009/03 ... falls.html

[copious.abundance]

Actually this news demands an even more snarky response.

In the face of record high oil prices that is the best the industry and planet can do?

pathetic.

As pointed out in the opening post:

Had prices not collapsed in the 2nd half of 2008 - causing many producers to dial production back - the record would have likely been much higher.

Additionally, I would conjecture the high prices during much of the year themselves killed some demand, and hence, probably some supply. In other words, if the price last year had simply bounced around between, say, $60 and $80, instead of going all the way over $140 and spending several months over $100, that could have increased demand but also been a high-enough price to allow supply to increase as well.

But of course we'll never know for certain.

[TheDude]

Quite the staggering gain, too: .054 mb/d average. So let's give a shout out with a hearty dealus biggus!

You don't check up on Rapier's posts on your own, OF? He's very sharp, has worked on calculating refinery gains for major companies, and done a lot of sound research into the potential of ethanol. This is an interesting comment:

Had prices not collapsed in the 2nd half of 2008 - causing many producers to dial production back - the record would have likely been much higher.

I've been saying for a while that the bottom up studies seem to suggest that 2009 will possibly be the all-time peak. The dearth of projects thereafter is what we should be worrying about. Getting on board with CERA etc. and feeling safe and secure with a 2020 peak is wholly misguided, too. Hirsch is correct that we should address this problem in advance instead of hoping markets will cope with it when it becomes apparent; why this is even disputed is beyond me, unless you're just displaying a kneejerk reaction to the Doomers with a Capital D.

Speaking of which, the link to RR's experience with dogmatic fanatics is an amusing read: R-Squared Energy Blog: Peak Oil and the Lunatic Fringe. Hey, I thought Freddy Hutter copyrighted that!

The Oil Drum receives a great many visitors each day (currently over 12,000 a day). While the vast majority are interested in intelligent discourse on energy issues, there is a very vocal lunatic fringe who accept Peak Oil RIGHT NOW with a religious fervor. They lash out at any viewpoints that challenge this notion. To be clear, not all who believe Peak Oil is now fall into the lunatic fringe category. In fact, most don't. There are many very serious posters who argue that peak is now, and they use data and logic to argue their point. However, the lunatic fringe will tend to associate themselves with posters espousing these views, and legitimate challenges of the data are sometimes met with bitter ad hominem attacks. Add to that the fringe who think that because I work for an oil company, they are entitled to pile on with ad hominem attacks, and I have found myself increasingly on the receiving end of some very nasty comments and e-mails.

People dismissing Robert as a mole in the pay of Conoco Phillips...oh, to wash the world of these boneheads.

[TheDude]

Denial isn't a word I use lightly; I'm simply advocating for people to take this issue with the seriousness it warrants, for whatever good that does. Rapier chimed in on the [url=http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5175]March 8 DrumBeat,
[/url] his first appearance on TOD in a great while, if anyone's curious. I'm with him that while trying to pin down the precise date of peak makes for interest discourse it's a distraction from the greater situation, and also firm pronouncements on this serve to discredit the peak oil community, and not only from fellow bloggers like JD, judging from sundry WSJ editorials over the years. How much attention the subject will get...some of the comments there are telling, like Andre Angel's observation that about 1 in 20 people he makes his spiel to ever take it seriously. But also note the commentator who says he never got very far with preaching peak oil, but post-calamity economic shock is proving to be another matter. Concrete demonstration is the only way to go by and large, it seems, unfortunately.

Excellent article from Jim Kingsolver on the shape of near-term supply: When Will the Oil Price Pop? -- Seeking Alpha. Jim is impressed by the work of the Wiki Megaprojects team as well; why is this basically the only publicly available resource of its kind? In my fantasy world the EIA would co-opt the IHS database for all to see, but that coming to pass would truly be a stunning change of attitude from pols.

[JohnDenver]

Hirsch is correct that we should address this problem in advance instead of hoping markets will cope with it when it becomes apparent;

It's probably worth mentioning that the largest component (30%) of Hirsch's brilliant mitigation program is a 10-year crash ramp-up of Venezuelan heavy oil production from 0.6mbd to 6mbd. Yup, let's get busy on that one tomorrow. Does somebody have Chavez's phone number?

I don't see the need to rush. The reason Hirsch thinks you need a long time to prepare is because his entire plan revolves around producing substitute fuel -- keeping business as usual humming with 18mbd of new forms of liquid fuel like EOR, CTL, GTL and Heavy Oil/Tar Sands. And that's going to take a lot of time because you're talking about building dozens, maybe a hundred, massive refinery-scale facilities. So are you agreeing with Hirsch's program, Dude? Because that's virtually the entire rationale he gives for why we need to start early.

The best approach IMO is to jettison business as usual, and focus the entire effort on total efficiency and conservation. Hirsch himself admits that 30% of US oil consumption (6.3mbd) is due to discretionary auto and air travel. It's a lot easier, and smarter, to just cut that fat off. Trying to maintain that fat with heavy oil from Venezuela, like Hirsch suggests, is the very definition of a mentally retarded peak oil plan.

So what's the rush? Conservation and efficiency don't take any lead time. You can buy a bike and start riding it tomorrow. Carpooling and telecommuting are somewhat of a hassle, but they definitely don't take 10-20 years to scale up. For that matter, why not go for the touchdown and start rationing? I bet you could set up a decent emergency rationing scheme in 3 months.

Honesty, Dude, what exactly do we need to do in advance, in your opinion, and why is it going to take so long? I'm presuming that you don't actually agree with Hirsch's mitigation plan, even though you namedrop it out of convention.

[RobertRapier]

Actually this news demands an even more snarky response.

In the face of record high oil prices that is the best the industry and planet can do?

pathetic.

It's been over a year since I visited, but I see that pstarr still doesn't know what he is talking about. You would think that you would have learned a little bit more about the oil industry with almost 8,000 posts under your belt. Let's see, the last time I was here was in 2007, when you were claiming that Saudi was on their last legs. You were predicting an immediate decline. Here is what you said in October of 2007, after I pointed out that Saudi production was on the way up:

It seems those tired reworked wells have managed another month's gasp. It's not summer yet.

So what happened? In October of 2007 Saudi production was 8.8 million bpd, and people like you were calling for a Nosedive in the Desert. Remember that? What happened by summer? Saudi production climbed month after month, hit 9.7 million bpd, and averaged 9.3 million bpd for the year. Production rose as I predicted, while you and some others were predicting an imminent decline. My question for you: Did you ever step up and own your failed predictions? Did you ever admit that you didn't actually know what you were talking about, or that those you backed had been wrong?

That's a problem I have with people like you. People make all of these 'gutsy' predictions, or they cheerlead for those who do. Then when the predictions fail, they make excuses or quietly sweep them under the rug. But you should take away the lesson that the future is not certain, and if you are less than rigorous when looking at the data, it is even more uncertain. You have failed to distinguish between sound analyses and unsound analyses because you don't know enough about the industry to understand when errors are being made or data overlooked. You get snapshots - often from people who don't know anything about the industry - and then you make broad conclusions.

Now, back to your point:

In the face of record high oil prices that is the best the industry and planet can do?

pathetic.

Do you not understand the lead time on projects? It isn't like turning on a switch. People don't seem to understand that. New projects can take 5-10 years to come online, and 5 years ago oil companies were still basing projects on an assumption of $30 oil. The problem is that you, and so many amateurs like you, don't understand this and they build all of these scenarios that have no foundation. I have seen this so many times; a fantastic scenario built on a foundation of misunderstanding. And when these scenarios fail to materialize, they don't step up and say "I was wrong." They just move on and make more predictions.

Go back to your 2007 posts. There was this one in June 2007, when you were arguing that I was losing the argument on Saudi:

Robert Rapier was among the more optimistic (David Cohen being another) regulars at the Oildrum. Those two are in decendence as the very convincing argument for SA decline by Westexas, Stuart, Euran (and tons of others) continue to gain validity.

Euan and I, by the way, have largely been on the same page. And by the time Stuart finally stopped posting, his views had changed as well. My views didn't have to change, because they were correct.

This one:

if Robert's "extra understanding" of the refinery system did not include previous analysis by Stuart at the Oildrum then it is not complete.

Stuart correlated current world refinery maintenance and shortage issues specifically with production declines in 'Ain Dar, Shedgum, and 'Uthmaniyah and their replacement with low-quality heavy sour crude from Hawiyah and Haradh.

This was a case in which you had concluded that Stuart - someone who had never worked a day in the oil industry - had enough knowledge to supersede mine in an area in which I worked. I was pointing out a number of factors that influenced what we were observing, and you presumed that Stuart had all of that accounted for - therefore my points were invalid.

And this was the kicker, also in June:

Robert is way too optimistic regarding SA. I always side with west texas on those debates.

and so do I, and it appears the majority at the Oildrum agrees that Mr. Rapier is no longer a major player. The ball is definitely in Stuart's court. I understand Stuart has submitted his analysis to Science magazine for publication.

So my question for you is: Have you learned anything since then? Has Saudi played out as westexas and Stuart predicted? Are you ready to admit that you were completely wrong? Or do we (more likely) get to witness another round of rationalizing?

RR

[AAA]

Yikes this is getting ugly.

[copious.abundance]

I have just one thing to say:

AHAHAHAHA!!!!

[pedalling_faster]

it's a complete waste of prep time to debate the timing of the peak.

but it's interesting to talk about

when production backs off, does it give the oil-version-of-aquifers time to seep some more oil to the well-heads - in a way that allows an actual increase in production from a well that's been "resting" ?

[RobertRapier]

Rapier we have embarked on the last days of petroleum. No amount of obfuscation or name calling will change that. Your ardent support of the biofool industry has been no more successful than you defense of the Kingdom. So sorry

I guess that would be "change the subject and sweep it under the rug." You had no problems suggesting that I didn't know what I was talking about, yet things played out as I said they would (and contrary to what you were predicting). You seriously can't be man enough to own that? Why am I not surprised? And to make matters worse, you are now falsely throwing more mud in my direction (see below).

Why does this matter? If you are putting your faith in the hands of people who have a penchant for faulty data analysis, your perception of the future is potentially skewed. This affects how people prepare for the future. It can affect policy decisions. This is a serious topic, worthy of serious analysis. It isn't an argument over peak in 2005 or peak in 2008. The argument is around the psychology of incorrect predictions despite certainty, and the loss of credibility that ensues. I think this is the same kind of psychology that prevents self-reflection into why you might have been wrong.

As for my ardent support of the 'biofool' industry, you obviously have me confused with someone else. I have testified at the state legislature against biofuel mandates. So I really have no idea what you are talking about. I have been a crusader against the overhype and overpromises coming from that sector.

RR

[AAA]

I have no idea why you dug up ancient posts from the Oildrum. I am not interested in revisiting old debates as the entire geo(logic)political terrain has changed.

He is not debating. It appears he is proving you wrong with facts.

[RobertRapier]

I have no idea why you dug up ancient posts from the Oildrum. I am not interested in revisiting old debates as the entire geo(logic)political terrain has changed.

Those posts weren't from The Oil Drum. They were from this site, in the only other thread I had ever participated in before today. I showed up then to defend myself against your accusations that I didn't know what I was talking about. See if this jogs your memory.

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=29659

It appears that no combination of endemic high oil prices (7 years has yet to open the new-field faucet) or this recession (and attendant oil-field-material cost reductions) has increased supplies to IEA demand-forecast levels. Something is wrong. Could it be peak?

Supplies have risen by quite a bit in the past 7 years as prices rose. Lots of new production has come online.

No pretty presentation or hopeful science will alter the fact that our petroleum-addicted infrastructure and growth dependent (oil fueled) financial system are basically toast.

That details of what we face – timing, downslope, etc. are important. I often see the Titanic analogy. Once they hit the iceberg, they were toast. But if they had sank more slowly, or had more lifeboats more people could have survived.

You apparently changed over the years.

My first posts at TOD, and on my blog, were pointing out the problems with our corn ethanol policy. But I don't lump all biofuels into the same bag. There are some special exceptions, and I have written favorably on those. But if you think I have been a big fan of our biofuels policy, I would encourage you to have a read through the stories I have written.

RR

[shortonsense]

Hat tip to JD for the find:
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2009/03 ... falls.html

Geez.....now I have to go back and read some more of Hubberts work, see how many total peaks he envisioned....I mean really, his paper should have been titled, "Nuclear Energy and The Many Peaks of Fossil Fuels" or something similar.