[mmasters]

I mean if more than 10 people log on the site will crash.

[Buddy_J]

I mean if more than 10 people log on the site will crash.

People over at TOD wanted to come over to talk with Rockman, and apparently couldn't get it to work. Maybe only those of us with accounts already in place can participate?

[Beery1]

I mean if more than 10 people log on the site will crash.

When peak oil becomes clear to everyone, all the site's cornucopians will suddenly go silent, while most people will find themselves facing increased food costs and so they'll be struggling to justify spending their dwindling cash on internet access. So I don't think there will be a sudden increase in traffic on the site.

[Econ101]

I mean if more than 10 people log on the site will crash.

When peak oil becomes clear to everyone, all the site's cornucopians will suddenly go silent, while most people will find themselves facing increased food costs and so they'll be struggling to justify spending their dwindling cash on internet access. So I don't think there will be a sudden increase in traffic on the site.

Your increasing food costs are caused in the most part by increasing demand about 30% - 50% through the SNAP program without adding any productivity. Suddenly you had demand up and supply stays the same or shrinks depending on season and product.

I dont think you have to worry about oil much. This is just North Dakota:



In February North Dakota produced over 842,000 Barrels of fine crude/day. Going through the well by well inventory of producers on the ND minerals site is very interesting. Its obvious depletion numbers are exaggerated when looking at the producing # of wells, wells capable of producing (off line probably because of permits or shipping) and of course the ever rising production.

With that kind of productivity firing up around the globe there may be a loss of interest in peak oil as it becomes clear it is a political science that is getting overwhelmed by facts resulting in a loss of website traffic.

[C8]

Everyone is talking about the end of Peak Oil. My experience with trends is that its just when everyone is talking about them that they reverse. Peak Oil could easily be back in a big way in just two years. All it would take is a rapid decline of more major fields or a fall off of productivity in fracking- its really a very fragile thing.

[Econ101]

Everyone is talking about the end of Peak Oil. My experience with trends is that its just when everyone is talking about them that they reverse. Peak Oil could easily be back in a big way in just two years. All it would take is a rapid decline of more major fields or a fall off of productivity in fracking- its really a very fragile thing.

Take a look at the falling producition from 1985-2005 or so, before the vertical climb that by most estimates has at least 30 yrs to go before the USGS tripled down.

That small trend has been pointed to by some as a harbinger of peak oil. Now compare that mild downward slope with the dramitic and almost verticle upward slope. The only question is duration and the facts are in: This is going to go on for generations. The fragility you hope for is not there. Look at that graph!

[SamInNebraska]

I mean if more than 10 people log on the site will crash.

When peak oil becomes clear to everyone, all the site's cornucopians will suddenly go silent, while most people will find themselves facing increased food costs and so they'll be struggling to justify spending their dwindling cash on internet access. So I don't think there will be a sudden increase in traffic on the site.

Clear to everyone? Some say that today's prices are proof of peak oil, and therefore those signs outside of gas stations are already making it clear to everyone. And Americans at least are still finding enough money to pay for as much fuel as they require, which fortunately for all of us is less than it once was. Decrease demand (saving money), increase production at world market prices (creating good paying jobs) and you could say that peak oil has been a pretty good thing for America.

[Tanada]

Clear to everyone? Some say that today's prices are proof of peak oil, and therefore those signs outside of gas stations are already making it clear to everyone. And Americans at least are still finding enough money to pay for as much fuel as they require, which fortunately for all of us is less than it once was. Decrease demand (saving money), increase production at world market prices (creating good paying jobs) and you could say that peak oil has been a pretty good thing for America.

As I seem to recall about 8 or 10 years ago there was an economist touting the fact that higher fuel prices in the USA always lead to higher productivity, higher efficiency and ultimately more sustainable growth.

I wonder who it was and what they think now? Wish I could remember the name, or at least the organization.

[Beery1]

...Some say that today's prices are proof of peak oil, and therefore those signs outside of gas stations are already making it clear to everyone...

Surely you've seen all those articles in mainstream media proclaiming the death of peak oil? It is far from clear to everyone that there might even be a problem. If it were clear to everyone, no one would be at the mall at the weekend, Americans would be out of debt, moving closer to their workplaces, converting their gardens into permaculture vegetable farms and exchanging their cars for bicycles.

[SeaGypsy]

We are here to subvert the dominant paradigm. They are there to keep it in place. We are right, factually and ethically. They are leading humanity towards ignorance and ultimately die-off; the status quo is just not worth eternity, which is how long extinction is for.

[ralfy]

Your increasing food costs are caused in the most part by increasing demand about 30% - 50% through the SNAP program without adding any productivity. Suddenly you had demand up and supply stays the same or shrinks depending on season and product.

I dont think you have to worry about oil much. This is just North Dakota:



In February North Dakota produced over 842,000 Barrels of fine crude/day. Going through the well by well inventory of producers on the ND minerals site is very interesting. Its obvious depletion numbers are exaggerated when looking at the producing # of wells, wells capable of producing (off line probably because of permits or shipping) and of course the ever rising production.

With that kind of productivity firing up around the globe there may be a loss of interest in peak oil as it becomes clear it is a political science that is getting overwhelmed by facts resulting in a loss of website traffic.

Go back to your first paragraph: the problem isn't productivity but production catching up with demand.

We are now resorting to shale, etc., because conventional production has hardly caught up with global demand, and production for the majors has been dropping:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9946

Thus, we're seeing the effects of peak oil even before conventional production drops.

As explained in other threads, the best-case scenario for NA is 12 Mb/d by the end up the decade, a production rate that can't even meet current U.S. oil consumption of 19 Mb/d. Globally, the IEA reports a 9-pct increase in production from all oil and gas sources in two decades, but to maintain economic growth, oil consumption has to increase by around 2 pct each year.

Such optimistic news is not new. For example, before 2005, several experts argued that by now we should be seeing global production at 115 Mb/d and an oil price of less than $30 a barrel. Even Saudi Arabia boasted in 2009 that they would easily reach 15 Mb/d by 2011.

[ROCKMAN]

SeaGypsy – Along those same lines I just gave the same ole POD (Peak Oil Dynamic) pitch in another thread. I know it was unavoidable to have so much of the discussion initially focused on a PO date and production rates. Most here appear to understand the really important dynamic at work today: energy prices and the affects they are having on the economies and thus everyone’s daily lives. And in the future the possibility that access to energy regardless of price may dominate life.

A silly thought just popped to mind but it seems appropriate the more I think about it: the old tortoise and hare race fable. Our hare, fueled by increasing US oil production, is so confident of winning there’s no need to discuss any other aspect of the race. Our conserving tortoise is more focused on maintaining a slow but more manageable race. The hare does feel the effects (rising oil prices, unemployment, military adventures, etc) but feels good because he has more energy and assumes all will be OK. And in this fable the hare actually reaches the finish line first. But instead of finding a cheering crowd there he discovers a world he really doesn’t care to exist in. And our poor ole tortoise is still heading for that world at the finish line also. But at least he knew it was there waiting and has done what he could to prepare for it.

[mmasters]

I mean if more than 10 people log on the site will crash.

When peak oil becomes clear to everyone, all the site's cornucopians will suddenly go silent, while most people will find themselves facing increased food costs and so they'll be struggling to justify spending their dwindling cash on internet access. So I don't think there will be a sudden increase in traffic on the site.

They'll come when the oil shocks come, especially the speculators. A lot of people, especially young ones, have unreal expectations of the future. I wouldn't expect them to go quietly into the night like boiling frogs.

[Ibon]

When reality eclipses denial the evangelical mission of this website will have been complete. Then it can evolve towards a site that promotes resilience or having completed its mission it will fade.

The entire archive of posts, from the most inane to the most brilliant will be of historical importance as it will document not only the evolution of the understanding of peak oil and its consequences on the economy etc. but also as invaluable source material of the conflicted inner dialogue of the collective around coming to terms with limits.

[dorlomin]

The site's speed is a real turn off.

[dolanbaker]

Yes, it can take over two minutes to post a simple short message!

[SeaGypsy]

I'm in Australia, type 60 wpm, takes less than 2 minutes to post this and I much prefer a little slowness to the spam dumps we were getting with speed upgrades.

[ROCKMAN]

Guys – Since I type my messages in Word first (need spellcheck…geologists are notarious bad spellers). Then cut and paste to PO.com and click. Posts in about 5 seconds.

[C8]

Can a moderator or anyone explain the reason for the slowness issue? I have learned to multitask when this is up but it seems strange. Even small personal blogs run faster. Is there a slow spam filter?

[Econ101]

We are now resorting to shale, etc., because conventional production has hardly caught up with global demand, and production for the majors has been dropping:

Resorting to shale etc? What does that mean? Shale is just another oil bearing layer. The oil is the same and there is so much of it you don't have to worry about peak oil anymore.