Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Peak oil theory debunked (merged) Pt. 3

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

Peak oil theory debunked (merged) Pt. 3

Postby Econ101 » Tue 11 Dec 2012, 11:20:11

Yes, Barack Obama is the leader, the EPA are the strong arm thugs. The enviro nuts are the angry villagers demanding action and the media serve as the damaging gossip of the old ladies spreading the rumors and lies fueling the peak oil political movement. 8O
Econ101
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 322
Joined: Sat 01 Sep 2012, 07:47:56
Top

Re: Peak Oil Debunked was right

Postby Econ101 » Tue 11 Dec 2012, 12:14:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Econ101', 'P')eak oil is a political scheme vision_master not a joke. It is being used to gain political power and wealth by those employing the myth in their propaganda arsenals.

The refinement of the gas engine is not an indicator of overall oil reserves. It's not an indicator of anything except improved engineering.

Peak oil = peak politics.


Since much of the wealth of TPTB consists of money, then it's the other way round. It's not peak oil but peak oil denialism that is a "political scheme." That's because the value of that money can only be retained by increasing production and consumption of goods, and given a mass manufacturing system heavily dependent on oil can only be achieved by consuming more oil. Increasing oil price does not help because it also increases the cost of living and oil production cost.

That's why some of your arguments which do not show that peak oil is debunked (such as "improved engineering," which is actually a response to lower oil supply) are connected to a global economy that requires increased production and consumption. (It's falsely assumed that more efficiency leads to less consumption, but that doesn't apply to a global capitalist economy that involves competition.)


Improved efficency is not a response to lower supplies, it is a natural business reaction to rising costs threatening increasing profits. Successful business enterprises are always becoming more efficient. Thats how profits are created. Its absurd to try and rethink that fact. [smilie=5sigh.gif]

The evidence is clear we have rapidly expanding new recoverable oil reserves around the world adequate for our needs well beyond our lifetimes. The response of peak oilers is to increase public preassure on fracking, sick the EPA on the producers with an infinity of rules, regulations and fees trying to make it too expensive and/or slow it down dramatically.They also prohibit access to rich federal lands. There are a lot of votes riding on the peak oil myth proving out to be true.
Econ101
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 322
Joined: Sat 01 Sep 2012, 07:47:56
Top

Re: Peak Oil Debunked was right

Postby AirlinePilot » Tue 11 Dec 2012, 13:20:16

There is PLENTY of evidence that Bakken production is slowing down. The frantic pace of well completions should tell you one thing. High decline rates require it and the more rigs and wells you put up, the more decline you fight. Its the same old story and the numbers are showing a SLOWING increase to the rate of extraction.

Its all about the RATES, not the reserves.

Too many are pointing to the great increase in Bakken/ND production and shouting wildly that this will go on indefinitely. It wont and like all booms there will be a bust. I'm thankful for the small oil cushion it temporarily provides, but I'm also not delusional.
User avatar
AirlinePilot
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4378
Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South of Atlanta
Top

Re: Peak Oil Debunked was right

Postby dbruning » Tue 11 Dec 2012, 13:31:50

"it is a natural business reaction to rising costs threatening increasing profits"

Why are costs rising? If we are swimming in so much excess surely the costs of everything will go down, right?

It doesn't matter how much oil costs, just that there is a bunch of it available? I wonder when they will start factoring in hydrocarbons surrounding planets in our solar system for their reports...after all, there is a lot of it just floating around for the taking.

Ahhh, good times here we come!
User avatar
dbruning
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed 13 Sep 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Vancouver Island
Top

Re: Peak Oil Debunked was right

Postby Beery1 » Tue 11 Dec 2012, 18:49:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Econ101', 'Y')es, Barack Obama is the leader, the EPA are the strong arm thugs. The enviro nuts are the angry villagers demanding action and the media serve as the damaging gossip of the old ladies spreading the rumors and lies fueling the peak oil political movement. 8O


I have to ask you seriously, might it be time to get yourself evaluated by a psychiatrist?
"I'm gonna have to ask you boys to stop raping our doctor."
Beery1
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Tue 17 Jan 2012, 21:31:15
Top

Re: Peak Oil Debunked was right

Postby Quinny » Tue 11 Dec 2012, 19:25:43

Ok sorry about the broken record, but I'll say it again.

The prevalence of conspiracy theorists amongst Peak Oil denialist's simply confirm my belief we are in a real predicament.
Live, Love, Learn, Leave Legacy.....oh and have a Laugh while you're doing it!
User avatar
Quinny
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Thu 03 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Peak Oil Debunked was right

Postby ralfy » Wed 12 Dec 2012, 00:42:14

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Econ101', '
')
Improved efficency is not a response to lower supplies, it is a natural business reaction to rising costs threatening increasing profits. Successful business enterprises are always becoming more efficient. Thats how profits are created. Its absurd to try and rethink that fact. [smilie=5sigh.gif]



That's my point. :roll:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')
The evidence is clear we have rapidly expanding new recoverable oil reserves around the world adequate for our needs well beyond our lifetimes. The response of peak oilers is to increase public preassure on fracking, sick the EPA on the producers with an infinity of rules, regulations and fees trying to make it too expensive and/or slow it down dramatically.They also prohibit access to rich federal lands. There are a lot of votes riding on the peak oil myth proving out to be true.


The claim that it will be "adequate for our needs" is not true given your first paragraph.

Given that, there's a "lot riding" not on the "peak oil myth" but on claims of adequate production.

How much do we need? Threads raised by Oilfinder2 and others in this forum reveal that NA will add 6 Mb/d to total production during the next decade, raising the production level to 12 Mb/d.

But current oil consumption is 19 Mb/d for the U.S. alone, and as you pointed out in your first paragraph, any efficiency will ultimately lead to consumption of what is saved in order to make more profits.
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5651
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland
Top

Re: Peak Oil Debunked was right

Postby Econ101 » Thu 20 Dec 2012, 11:41:43

Im sorry ralfy but your responses are disjointed and your logic fails.

We will have all the oil we need. We have always had all the oil we need. Statistics used to project shortages into the future are all flawed or worse yet misrepresented for political purposes.

Eroei for example is a manipulative idea used to support the propaganda of peak oil. 25:1 is a better estimate of the ratio of BS to facts concerning our energy future. It in no way can be considered a measure of anything meaningful. That is why it is rejected by the mainstream and only mentioned within political contexts like this forum. It is a political tool like global warming. Its used to secure the base, like ralfy, by stiring up their emotions not their minds.

Peak oil is the refuge of crack-pots. It was created by a person that in retrospect knew little or nothing about the future of oil production in the USA or the world. He made a prediction based on his own limited, and now known to be ignorant, point of view. But facts arent important to people that have dogma on their side and are continually reinforced through a mass media propaganda effort being employed by political forces to secure a base.
Econ101
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 322
Joined: Sat 01 Sep 2012, 07:47:56
Top

Re: Peak Oil Debunked was right

Postby Econ101 » Thu 20 Dec 2012, 11:52:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Beery1', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Econ101', 'Y')es, Barack Obama is the leader, the EPA are the strong arm thugs. The enviro nuts are the angry villagers demanding action and the media serve as the damaging gossip of the old ladies spreading the rumors and lies fueling the peak oil political movement. 8O


I have to ask you seriously, might it be time to get yourself evaluated by a psychiatrist?


You mad braugh?

Im sorry beery, but that type of response would in fact get you eliminated from a high school debate tournament bro. Your reply reveals an empty head with nothing going on except your typical angry and frustrated reactions when presented with facts and truths. Im worried about your stability bro. Through your response you offer undeniable proof you have substituted anger for thinking and your thoughts are just political dogma rattling around in your now known to be empty head.

Some of you are so used to adulation for the most rediculous and unfounded statements that you have a sense of entitlement to your crack-pot ideas.
Econ101
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 322
Joined: Sat 01 Sep 2012, 07:47:56
Top

Re: Peak Oil Debunked was right

Postby Econ101 » Thu 20 Dec 2012, 11:59:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dbruning', '&')quot;it is a natural business reaction to rising costs threatening increasing profits"

Why are costs rising? If we are swimming in so much excess surely the costs of everything will go down, right?

It doesn't matter how much oil costs, just that there is a bunch of it available? I wonder when they will start factoring in hydrocarbons surrounding planets in our solar system for their reports...after all, there is a lot of it just floating around for the taking.

Ahhh, good times here we come!


Costs are rising mainly due to unneccessay government interference through the strong arm enforcer the EPA. Left alone costs would fall and are falling as a result of improved efficiencies that go along with any successful business.

You might also notice rig count is down in North Dakota. Not the end of the world and the proof peak oilers have been waiting for, rather a sign that we dont need as many rigs to get improving production because of all the efficiencies being employed in the development of this resource.

Peak oil is politics. The misinformation campaign called peak oil is propaganda used to secure a politcal base. That is the purpose of propaganda. It was used effectively by Stalin too.
Econ101
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 322
Joined: Sat 01 Sep 2012, 07:47:56
Top

Re: Peak Oil Debunked was right

Postby AdTheNad » Thu 20 Dec 2012, 12:41:27

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Econ101', 'P')eak oil is politics. The misinformation campaign called peak oil is propaganda used to secure a politcal base. That is the purpose of propaganda. It was used effectively by Stalin too.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=you+n ... 0QX-4ID4CA
AdTheNad
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 433
Joined: Wed 22 Dec 2010, 07:47:48
Top

Re: Peak Oil Debunked was right

Postby ralfy » Thu 20 Dec 2012, 12:49:59

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Econ101', 'I')m sorry ralfy but your responses are disjointed and your logic fails.


Yeah, keep dreaming. :roll:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')
We will have all the oil we need. We have always had all the oil we need. Statistics used to project shortages into the future are all flawed or worse yet misrepresented for political purposes.



Indeed, they are flawed, as they use reserves (thus, "we have all the oil we need") and not production rate, etc. That's where the misrepresentation takes place. What else can agencies working for businesses and governments do except tell them that everything's fine. That's where your "political purposes" come in.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')
Eroei for example is a manipulative idea used to support the propaganda of peak oil. 25:1 is a better estimate of the ratio of BS to facts concerning our energy future. It in no way can be considered a measure of anything meaningful. That is why it is rejected by the mainstream and only mentioned within political contexts like this forum. It is a political tool like global warming. Its used to secure the base, like ralfy, by stiring up their emotions not their minds.



Actually, it's not rejected by the mainstream, together with anything else you claim is propaganda. The proof is the OP's message, which argues that shale will replace conventional production. If your melodramatic BS is true, then there'd be no need to use shale at all. That's why the threat title is actually wrong: peak oil was not debunked, as the OP actually confirmed peak by arguing that shale will be used when conventional production drops or cannot meet demand.

What the mainstream rejects is the absence of solutions. That's because most want to have a middle class lifestyle while corporations want to profit from that. With that, the mainstream is supposed to be fed with propaganda that peak oil is "debunked," that global warming is a "political tool," etc. The pattern is very obvious: the goal is to stir up the emotions of people by making them happy with the conclusion that businesses and governments will take care of any problem (or that there is none at all).

Unfortunately, some things one cannot hide, and the OP ironically demonstrates that in the chart presented in his message.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')
Peak oil is the refuge of crack-pots. It was created by a person that in retrospect knew little or nothing about the future of oil production in the USA or the world. He made a prediction based on his own limited, and now known to be ignorant, point of view. But facts arent important to people that have dogma on their side and are continually reinforced through a mass media propaganda effort being employed by political forces to secure a base.


But the graph shared by the OP, and which he didn't contradict, shows peak production per capita. Even you did not counter that.
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5651
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland
Top

Re: Peak Oil Debunked was right

Postby dorlomin » Fri 21 Dec 2012, 10:10:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Econ101', '
')Peak oil is politics. The misinformation campaign called peak oil is propaganda used to secure a politcal base. That is the purpose of propaganda. It was used effectively by Stalin too.
NKVD arrest squads were probibly more important.

But it was Edward Berneys who first started using modern science in propaganda, he effectively built the modern capitalist marketing industry.

However let us look more closely at your claim.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')eak oil is politics.
An assertion without any back up.

'Peak oil' is simply the summation of the projected depletion curves of the worlds oil fields. By itself neither controversial or really with much to argue against it. So where is the evidence that peak oil is really anything more than a metastudy of the worlds oil fields?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')The misinformation campaign called peak oil is propaganda used to secure a political base.
Other than small parties like the Greens and so on, no major political organization even recognized peak oil. Until a couple of years ago to talk about it was considered a crankish idea outside of professional petroleum geologists and environmentalist (two groups not exactly on the best of terms with each other). So where is the authors asserted "political base"?

Not the US republican or democrats for sure. Peak oil has no real traction in those constituencies.

I think perhaps the author is somewhat misguided in their enthusiasm for conspiracies.
User avatar
dorlomin
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5193
Joined: Sun 05 Aug 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Peak Oil Debunked was right

Postby dorlomin » Fri 21 Dec 2012, 10:19:45

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Econ101', ' ') That is why it is rejected by the mainstream and only mentioned within political contexts like this forum. It is a political tool like global warming.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut facts arent important to people that have dogma on their side
Alchemy, turning pure irony into comedy gold.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'a')nd are continually reinforced through a mass media propaganda effort being employed by political forces to secure a base.
Which mass media?
User avatar
dorlomin
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5193
Joined: Sun 05 Aug 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Peak Oil Debunked was right

Postby Beery1 » Mon 24 Dec 2012, 13:03:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Econ101', 'I')f the past is any indication we will do just fine as long as we dont sucumb to the type of idiocy that caused the uswashed masses to destroy the libraries at Alexandria and Constantinople.


Unwashed masses did not destroy those libraries. Military men did, and they were most likely relatively clean, by the standards of the day. That they were engaging in idiocy is not in much doubt - they were likely looking to secure resources, because their own were dwindling and their societies were unwilling to live in a sustainable manner - a manner to which they had been unaccustomed for some time. The reason they engaged in destructive idiocy was most likely that they had foolishly listened too long to folks telling them that everything would be just fine. We will grow to understand that sort of idiocy shortly, despite your assurances that everything will be just fine.
"I'm gonna have to ask you boys to stop raping our doctor."
Beery1
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Tue 17 Jan 2012, 21:31:15
Top

Re: Peak Oil Debunked was right

Postby Beery1 » Mon 24 Dec 2012, 13:18:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Econ101', 'P')eak oil is the refuge of crack-pots.


Strange then, that it has been confirmed in every oil well ever drilled, confirmed in most countries that have crude oil reserves, and confirmed on a global scale just 6 years ago. The number of countries that have yet to see a peak in crude oil production are few and dwindling. Will peak oil still be a refuge for crack-pots when every oil well in the world is in decline? If so, then those who claim it's a refuge for crack-pots are themselves the crack-pots.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t was created by a person that in retrospect knew little or nothing about the future of oil production in the USA or the world.


'Little or nothing', yet more than anyone else on the face of the Earth, since he accurately predicted the date of the US peak to within a year, and he was just as prescient about the global peak.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')e made a prediction based on his own limited, and now known to be ignorant, point of view.


Nevertheless, he was right about the fact that there would be a peak, and he was right about the date. And the cornucopians were dead wrong. If he was ignorant, what does that make folks like you?
"I'm gonna have to ask you boys to stop raping our doctor."
Beery1
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Tue 17 Jan 2012, 21:31:15
Top

Re: Peak Oil Debunked was right

Postby Dybbuk » Fri 28 Dec 2012, 20:03:17

Hello folks, new user, first post here. I'm new to the whole peak oil thing. I've been reading a lot in the past few weeks and I'm a bit worried.

I don't have the know-how to determine immediately who is right in this argument, but based on my experience with reading opinions over the years, usually when one side has a tone of hand-wavy sneering, that side is usually wrong. It seems like that pretty well describes the anti-peak-oil people at the moment. Like for instance, one of the first articles I read was Ronald Bailey's piece in Reason about a month ago. He latches on to a report by Leonardo Maugeri (which I believe has been debunked, right?), accepts it as gospel, and then immediately uses it as a platform to sneer at and dismiss anyone who has any concerns at all about energy scarcity.

I'm so reminded of a conversation with my sister (then a California homeowner) in 2004, when she laughingly brushed aside my belief that real estate was overvalued, saying "oh, that's what they've been saying for years now". Or friends at work around 1997-1999 who said I was a being a debbie downer who needed to not worry and be happy, when I said that tech stocks might be a bit pricey.

In fact, I see this as a recurring theme in issue-related forums: if somebody loudly warned of some disaster in the past that didn't happen on schedule, that somehow proves that it can never happen. Just in the past month on another forum, one guy said that since Paul Ehrlich predicted worldwide famine in the 1970's and was given a lot of media play, somehow that should reassure anyone who is worried about famine this century; another one said that since gold bugs and their like have been taking about hyperinflation forever, somehow that means that anyone talking about hyperinflation now should be ignored.

By that logic...I could ensure my own immortality by going around and constantly proclaiming that my death is imminent (as long as I'm wrong at the beginning, of course).

I don't know if people like Econ101 and John Denver have a point or not. It's almost impossible for a novice to discern any signal in all the noise.

There's some data I would like to see, and maybe I can find it if I look a little harder around this site. Is there a study on the global uses of petroleum...how much of the annual consumption is devoted to various activities, like agriculture, aviation, automobiles, etc.?

And is there a graph of historical worldwide production of total fossil fuel energy (meaning, oil, gas, and coal combined) by year, using whatever common unit of energy is customary (joules?), subtracting the energy used to produce the energy?
Dybbuk
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri 28 Dec 2012, 19:31:37
Top

Re: Peak Oil Debunked was right

Postby radon » Sat 29 Dec 2012, 08:00:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dybbuk', '
')There's some data I would like to see, and maybe I can find it if I look a little harder around this site.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WBiTnBwSWc
To make things easier for you so that you do not have to scan the website in search for this link - it addresses the questions that you raised, including historical eroeis.
radon
 
Top

Re: Peak Oil Debunked was right

Postby MrEnergyCzar » Sun 06 Jan 2013, 00:00:55

The only way to debunk PO is to change the definition away from the peaking of conventional oil (2006) to include everything else and not account the net energy needed for those other liquids.... don't be surprised if electricity megawatts start getting added in...

What do I know, I'm just coal on this site...

MrEnergyCzar
User avatar
MrEnergyCzar
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Tue 30 Mar 2010, 21:52:04
Location: CT
Top
Next
Post a reply

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests



cron