Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Colin Campbell Thread (merged)

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

THE Colin Campbell Thread (merged)

Unread postby NevadaGhosts » Thu 05 May 2005, 17:44:26

Colin Campbell talks about the coming Great Depression
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he scene is set for the Second Great Depression, but the conservatism and outdated mindset of institutional investors, together with the momentum of the massive flows of institutional money they are required to place, may help to diminish the sense of panic that a vision of reality might impose. On the other hand, the very momentum of the flow may cause a greater deluge when the foundations of the dam finally crumble. It is a situation without precedent.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he survivors, whose numbers may not greatly exceed those of the pre-oil age, may find silver linings as they rediscover rural living, regionalism, diversity and local markets, coming to live in better harmony with themselves, each other, and the environment in which Nature has ordained them to live. But the transition will be a time of great tension, including international tension as consumers vie for access to dwindling supplies, and as city life becomes unsustainable.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')n present estimates, the overall peak of all categories of oil arrives in 2006, with that of oil and gas combined coming about two years later.

http://www.energybulletin.net/5944.html

2006 is next year. So soon...
NevadaGhosts
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 703
Joined: Fri 20 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby seldom_seen » Thu 05 May 2005, 18:02:11

nother good quote from that article:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A') widely held myth proclaims that technology will deliver more, when its main impact has been to hold production higher for longer, accelerating depletion.
seldom_seen
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2229
Joined: Tue 12 Apr 2005, 03:00:00

Unread postby DamienJasper » Fri 06 May 2005, 04:13:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NevadaGhosts', 'I') don't trust Lynch one bit. He's an economist, isn't he? And you know how often economists are wrong. It is a proven fact that the world's oil exploration companies are not finding any more large oil fields. Lynch needs to pull his head out of his ass. I don't trust economists. All they think about is numbers and money. Not physical oil limitations.


Okay, why are we on the "Debunk Lynch" train when he's wrong, but Campbell is indestructible despite his various passed prediction dates?
User avatar
DamienJasper
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 200
Joined: Tue 22 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Pocatello
Top

Unread postby 0mar » Fri 06 May 2005, 08:39:48

The crux of Michael Lynch's arguments is that "barons" and "lords" can make up for "kings" and "queens". As large fields deplete, smaller ones can offset and make up the decline. Considering that the world gets 30% of its own from about 25 fields (and there are several thousand fields pumping world wide), I don't think the argument holds water.
Joseph Stalin
"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. "
User avatar
0mar
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1499
Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Davis, California

Unread postby Doly » Fri 06 May 2005, 08:51:22

The distribution of sizes of oil fields makes it quite clear that, by the time the supergiant fields are depleted, we are well past peak.
User avatar
Doly
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4370
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00

Unread postby 2007 » Fri 06 May 2005, 08:56:01

It sounds implaussible to me if there are any big fields out there that we haven't discovered.

If technology will make a difference, it must be NEW technology, ie stuff we haven't got at the moment.

If we take US as example all the tech & finance we dream of hasn't stopped the slow but steady decline.

It's difficult to argue against Lynch and similar; No quote here but I think one of the arguments in that camp is that Middle East is swimming in oil and it doesn't make sense to look for more at the moment (because the reserves! are so large). To me that argument speaks for itself.
Peak Oil; Today is the first day of the rest in your life
User avatar
2007
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 133
Joined: Mon 23 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby Raxozanne » Fri 06 May 2005, 09:28:59

As far as I know it's only the OPEC countries that doubled their reserve estimates overnight. Do OPEC adhere to SEC reporting and that is why these figures jumped or were they doubling their figures so they could pump more under OPEC regulations?
Raxozanne
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 945
Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: UK

Unread postby heyhoser » Fri 06 May 2005, 09:48:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Raxozanne', 'A')s far as I know it's only the OPEC countries that doubled their reserve estimates overnight. Do OPEC adhere to SEC reporting and that is why these figures jumped or were they doubling their figures so they could pump more under OPEC regulations?


That's a big question.
heyhoser
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 223
Joined: Sun 17 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Czech Republic
Top

Unread postby DamienJasper » Fri 06 May 2005, 14:16:52

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('0mar', 'T')he crux of Michael Lynch's arguments is that "barons" and "lords" can make up for "kings" and "queens". As large fields deplete, smaller ones can offset and make up the decline. Considering that the world gets 30% of its own from about 25 fields (and there are several thousand fields pumping world wide), I don't think the argument holds water.


You know what else didn't hold water? All of Campbell's previous predictions. Just wanna hear him explain that one away is all. I mean, OPEC changes their figures around and suddenly it's "an agenda". Campbell changes his numbers around and it raises nary a peep.
User avatar
DamienJasper
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 200
Joined: Tue 22 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Pocatello
Top

Unread postby Ludi » Fri 06 May 2005, 16:14:47

How does Campbell's current prediction compare with predictions using Hubbert's equation?
Ludi
 

Unread postby OverABarrel » Fri 06 May 2005, 17:36:06

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Raxozanne', 'A')s far as I know it's only the OPEC countries that doubled their reserve estimates overnight. Do OPEC adhere to SEC reporting and that is why these figures jumped or were they doubling their figures so they could pump more under OPEC regulations?


No. Oil companies in OPEC are state owned and not subject to SEC reporting. And that the big problem with them : Unreliable data about what their reserves really are.

BTW, under SEC control, most of private Oil companies have always under reported their reserves to provide a safety cushion for their stock price.
"Eternity is a very long time. Especially near the end" Woody Allen
User avatar
OverABarrel
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri 29 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: France
Top

Unread postby nth » Tue 10 May 2005, 16:01:16

Campbell estimates 1.8 trillion barrels.
Most other experts predict ~2.0 trillion barrels.

If you use 1.8 - 2.5 trillion barrels, you will cover everyone, except USGS which predicts 3.1 trillion barrels.

I am not sure if USGS is including the non-coventional oil.

I know Ken Deffrey said that oil shales have close to 2 trillion barrels of oil, but is uneconomical and environmental disaster to produce.
User avatar
nth
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1978
Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2005, 04:00:00

Unread postby Tanada » Tue 10 May 2005, 17:47:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('trespam', '
')Lynch does not produce models that demonstrate where we will find the oil that we need, what percentage increase we will realize in production due to new technologies, etc. He does echo the common phrase that the stone age didn't end because of a lack of stones. Now really: what the hell does that statement have to do with anything. That's about as profound as his arguments seem to get.


The Oil Age will not end because we run out of oil, running low will be sufficient. Weather we come up with a solution that fixes the energy demand, or one that fixes the energy supply is the 100,000 dollar question.

Fixing demand is easy, we go back to a more simple lifestyle. I for one don't look forward to that because of the health and lifespan loss that will occure if we end up in that scenario.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alfred Tennyson', 'W')e are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17094
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA
Top

Unread postby Ludi » Tue 10 May 2005, 17:58:49

There's no need to suffer from health or lifespan loss due to a "simpler" way of life. There's no need to lose knowledge of basic sanitation, which has been the main preventer of disease in modern times. Nor a need to lose knowledge of sterile surgical techniques. Why people insist on equating a different way of life with suffering, I don't understand.
Ludi
 

Unread postby nth » Tue 10 May 2005, 18:05:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'T')here's no need to suffer from health or lifespan loss due to a "simpler" way of life. There's no need to lose knowledge of basic sanitation, which has been the main preventer of disease in modern times. Nor a need to lose knowledge of sterile surgical techniques. Why people insist on equating a different way of life with suffering, I don't understand.


reduce energy means lower quality of life.
most of the things that boost quality of life is driven by oil/energy.

knowledge will not be lost, but productivity decline will increase.
User avatar
nth
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1978
Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Unread postby Ludi » Tue 10 May 2005, 18:16:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nth', '
')
reduce energy means lower quality of life.
most of the things that boost quality of life is driven by oil/energy.


I strenuously disagree. It depends on how you define "quality of life." If you mean " a lot of stuff" then sure, we'll have less of that. But quality of life can also mean good quality food, which we may still have (in a best-case scenario), companionship, and less stress. Modern life is incredibly stressful for people. People in other cultures have significantly less stress than modern industrialized people. (and no, I'm not talking about starving third world people in sweatshops, so don't even bring that up)

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'k')nowledge will not be lost, but productivity decline will increase.


I'm not sure what "productivity" has to do with quality of life. Production of what?

(sorry for this digression, maybe this should be another topic)
Ludi
 
Top

Unread postby Tanada » Tue 10 May 2005, 18:18:26

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'T')here's no need to suffer from health or lifespan loss due to a "simpler" way of life. There's no need to lose knowledge of basic sanitation, which has been the main preventer of disease in modern times. Nor a need to lose knowledge of sterile surgical techniques. Why people insist on equating a different way of life with suffering, I don't understand.


Have you seen pictures from Ethiopia, Tibet or Nicaragua? World wide knowledge of sepsis and antiseptic treatments does not keep those people healthy and promote long life, why do you think it would be any different for you in a post modern world?

Knowledge is a great first step, but all the knowledge in the world won't help if you do not have the ability to implement it. After you spend an exhausting 12 hours a day hoeing corn and pulling up tares in the wheat will you have energy to dig the new outhouse pit deep and down hill from your water supply? Without bleach the only way to keep your water supply bacteria free is extensive boiling, best done in a pressure cooker. Where do you get your heat source of the supply is strictly local? And so on and so forth, saying we can all live a simple healthy life is not at all the same as doing it, and the older you get the harder it will be for you to dig a new latrine and haul in enough firewood to sterilize your drinking and washing water.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alfred Tennyson', 'W')e are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17094
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA
Top

Unread postby Ludi » Tue 10 May 2005, 18:23:06

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'i')t. After you spend an exhausting 12 hours a day hoeing corn and pulling up tares in the wheat .


I certainly won't be stupid enough to waste my time growing food that way!

Please continue this discussion in this new thread, we are off topic here:

Miserable!
Ludi
 
Top

Unread postby MonteQuest » Tue 10 May 2005, 19:17:08

For those of you who have been following this thread, it has been split from where it was hijacked by BiGG and is now here:

http://www.peakoil.com/post97612.html#97612
Last edited by MonteQuest on Tue 10 May 2005, 19:49:40, edited 1 time in total.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Unread postby BiGG » Tue 10 May 2005, 19:41:43

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seldom_seen', 'n')other good quote from that article:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A') widely held myth proclaims that technology will deliver more, when its main impact has been to hold production higher for longer, accelerating depletion.


Can we get Colin Campbell here to tell us how much he knows about the alleged "myths" of technology? I'm thinking he just does not know much about it making statements like that and I have a loooooooooong list of PhDs, Engineers, Professors, & Scientists that confirm that quickly I believe.

I have a long list of PhDs, Engineers, Professors, & Scientists that I can use to debate all of his prophesies of DOOM for that matter.
"The Stone Age did not end for lack of stone, and the Oil Age will end long before the world runs out of oil" ............ Former Saudi Arabian oil minister Sheikh Zaki Yamani,
User avatar
BiGG
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon 28 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Next

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron