by shortonsense » Tue 25 Aug 2009, 23:06:05
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'S')hort you still haven't answered my question: who other than you, JD, Oily, and Michael Lynch ($34 jerkin-yergin does not count) still believes peak oil is not here? And that the consequences will not be dire?
I asked first.
But to be polite, and for those with short memories, I participated in the 2005 peak oil thread and am perfectly happy to accept the information provided which assigned 2005 as the peak oil year. I certainly can't refute it with any information of my own, so I am forced to accept the evidence at hand. And the consequences of dropping real and nominal gasoline prices were certainly dire.
Now, in case you didn't actually read the Lynch article prior to casting rotten fruit at it, let me categorize his 3 points.
1) The discovery trend claim is bogus because it does not include revisions over time of field size estimates.
2) Modern technology is not accelerating field declines through "super straw" technology and whatnot.
3) There is quite a bit more recoverable oil than the 2 triliion barrels claimed by peakers.
#3 strikes me as completely self evident based on cumulative human production of oil to date, plus current reserve estimates which top the 2 trillion mark easily, let alone the trillions because of #2 referenced by Saleri in a JPT article I referenced in another thread.
But feel free to pick your favorite, you must have one.