by ralfy » Mon 26 Aug 2013, 00:25:23
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SamInNebraska', '
')
JohnA, I don't know what the exact debating term for it is, but you are assembling a specific set of conditions that you know cannot be met, and then challenging the other side to meet them.
It is not possible (short of feigned ignorance) to deny the large amount of resources available for human use. The etimates range from 6 trillion barrels or more of in-place resource in just conventional oil fields through perhaps 14 trillions barrels once the kerogen deposits of Colorado, the tar sands of Canada, and various other items are brought into play.
Any cost/supply curve can either recognize this reality, or be refuted in about 10 seconds of googling. Therefore your challenge is nothing more than an attempt to force others to recognize or repeat a point which appears to refute peak oil, that there is way more stuff left than we have used to date.
The only alternative to this is for someone to argue about other aspects of peak oil, such as production rate, or price. Which is the tack Ralfy appears to have taken.
You two are talking past each other, I'm betting because you use different definitions of "peak oil", and you are just naturally argumentative.
Hubbert's concept was not economic in nature. You are trying to force economic ideas into the equation, and a much more inclusive definition of useable resource. Peak oil in the more Hubbertian sense relates to flowrates and currently known estimates of size, there is a reason most of his estimates have actually been wrong, and they relate tochanges in technology, and things economists were right about.
Coming up with a cost/supply curve isn't the answer, because both size, technology and flowrates are all equally important. You are placing too much emphasis on only the part of this debate that you like. Or are trying to win. Or something.
I think he is referring to data from the IEA 2008 report. The IEA uses that and other sets of data to come up with the 2010 report, which confirms "Hubbert's concept." This was explained to him in another thread, but he didn't respond.
In short, there's no need to come up with a "competing" cost/supply curve because the IEA already shows, following their own curve and an assessment of resources, that oil and gas production will increase by only 9 pct during the next two decades, and only if various conditions are met. I explained this several times in this thread and in two others.
Aleklett questioned part of the production level, i.e., crude oil production on fields yet to be found, etc., and argues that this part of production, which essentially leads to the 9-pct increase, may be based on maximum depletion rates. A study was shared in another thread, and John didn't respond to that, either.
Thus, even the best-case scenario for the IEA is based on conditions that will be difficult to meet. Read the 2010 report for more details and my comments in this forum on the matter.
