by shortonoil » Wed 29 Apr 2009, 22:08:00
Shannymara said:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his aspect of the situations reminds me a lot of some things MonteQuest used to talk about, too, as far as peak oil being primarily an economic problem (I might be misquoting him but I'm sure y'all can look it up if you are curious). So far it seems to me he was correct. The interplay between economics and geology, as well as geopolitics, is certainly interesting and complex.
The Peak Oil movement has historically done itself a great disservice by separating itself into two camps. Those that viewed PO from an economic perspective and those who viewed it primarily as a geological phenomena. That allowed skeptics and those who wished to disclaim it, more than amble ammunition to exploit the weaknesses in the single model theories.
PO can not be adequately defined by any single discipline. Founded in basic resource extraction, to be fully comprehended, it has to be expanded into the real technological, economic world. The economists looked at the 4.3 gb figure and assumed that somehow, someone would devised a way to use it. Their models demanded that it must be so. The geologists looked at OOP, production figures, and historical trends and came to their own conclusions. PO would arrive in 2020, 2030, 2050 or sometime. Their supply side approach, which never fully defined what was usable supply, included everything but a reasonable projection of demand.
This schism left the unanointed in a vacuum, and one of the most important decisions of modern history was left to languish in limbo for fifty years. Hubbert, no doubt, understood the predicament; for it, he was ridiculed by his piers. At that famous API conference in 1956, he wrapped his determinations in the eloquence of a logistic curve, and passed it on to the next generation.
Now we sit at the sundown of the fossil fuel age, watching our culture disintegrate. The G20 holds meetings to evaluate how best to shuffle trillions, hoping that somehow a Royal Flush will appear. Except for a few, and most of them are more dedicated by intuition than analysis, rarely can one be found who appreciates our situation. The PO movement has much to answer for, while our premise was so right, our interpretation of it was so disastrously wrong.
AvailableEnergy