[Loki]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JanLarsMueller', 'T')he simple fact is that the term "peak oil" has worn out much of its usefulness and become a liability.

[westexas]

The long term (1930 to 2005) and 2002 to 2005 rates of increase in global C+C production were about the same, on the order of about 3%/year. "Gap" Charts for Global C+C and for Global Net Exports (total petroleum liquids + other liquids) follow, showing the gaps between where we would have been at the 2002 to 2005 rates of increase versus actual post-2005 data, by year. Of course, annual Brent crude oil prices approximately doubled from $25 in 2002 to $55 in 2005, and then doubled again, from $55 in 2005 to $112 in 2012 (with one year over year annual decline, in 2009).

Note that I estimate that we have already burned through about one-fifth of post-2005 Global CNE (Cumulative Net Exports). A similar extrapolation for the Six Country Case History* produced a post-1995 CNE estimate that was too optimistic.





*Six major net exporters, excluding China, that hit or approached zero net exports from 1980 to 2010.

Link to ECI article and excerpt from same:

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2013- ... city-index

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e know what the six year ECI decline meant for the Six Country Case History, and we know that we are seeing similar ECI type declines for Saudi Arabia, Global Net Exports and Available Net Exports.

The key question is why would the outcome for global net exports be materially different from the Six Country outcome?

My basic premise is that the net oil importing OECD countries are maintaining something resembling “Business As Usual” only because of huge and almost totally overlooked rates of depletion in post-2005 Global and Available Cumulative Net Exports of oil.

[ROCKMAN]

Sam - I agree. It's so unfortunate that so much focus was given to production rates and a relatively meaningless PO date. Everyone here understands the critical aspect is the cost/availability of energy. Even now it seems like there's still insufficient focus on the impact of higher oil costs. Consider how many more MSM stories there are today about increasing US oil production compared to the economic impact of the higher oil prices that have created that production increase. Great: we are producing more oil today than we were in 2002. And the American consumer is spending over $300 billion MORE for oil now. I wouldn't consider that a reason to smile with regards to our efforts to achieve "energy independence".

"Peak oil" was a handy term that many latched on to quickly back in the day. Now we just have to live with it and the misdirection of the conversation it's producing these days.

[SeaGypsy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', '
')"Peak oil" was a handy term that many latched on to quickly back in the day. Now we just have to live with it and the misdirection of the conversation it's producing these days.

[Pops]

So Jan and I talked a little (PMed anyway) and I get the idea he thinks we're being overly sensitive. So I deleted the spamish portion of his post and brought it back up, sorta-speak. I'm sure you all can find a way to donate if you are determined, lol, but of course preventing that was not the point.

Someone else PMed me and told me I shouldn't lump all TOD articles together as just about flow rates or PO dates, there was lots of other stuff talked about there. OK.


Here's my point: nothing essential about peak oil has changed aside from the PR battle and that was never a contest. I wrote our primer in '04 saying there is by definition a beginning and an end to extraction of any finite resource, at some point reaching a maximum flow rate followed by decline.

Nothing about that basic premise has changed, as Loki and Dude said, it looks more and more like PO all the time. Sure some predictions have proved accurate while many, on all sides, have not, which is par in the future guessing business.


Perhaps Jan will forgive me for my snark, perhaps not. Regardless I am proud of and very protective of the effort spent here by our members to shed light on the subject this last decade. We are the not the influential but that's why I like us!

.

[ROCKMAN]

SG - last time I looked a "term" is a word or collection of words. It's neither a fact or theory...just a term.

What's allowing the conversation to be misdirected is the counterargument that increased production, at least in the US, is "proof" that the concept of PO, at least in the short to midterm is incorrect...maybe forever for the dumbest out there. Most here know that this isn't a valid argument. But I'm not talking about usins here being misdirected but the vast majority of our citizens who ain't us. They are constantly inundated with "we are producing a lot more oil...no worries". You, me and most of the rest here know that's BS.

What's really frustrating is how little credit the increase in the price of oil is given to the situation. "We" ain't gonna convince the public by yelling "PO" in the theater and get folks heading for the exit by explaining the inevitability of PO while they daily read about the drilling boom in the US. As some folks have pointed out the web searches for "peak oil" have declined significantly. Tell me: out side of here and other similar ties how often do you see or hear any mention of 'PO'? Unfortunately I don't think 'POD' will turn into much of a rallying cry either.

We have ample proof that political policies tend to follow the common emotions of the electorate. You don't see much rhetoric about importing oil other then we are importing less. So yeah for us...no worries. And we are increasing domestic production...tens of thousands of wells to be drilled in the Balkan and Eagle Ford. So yeah for us...no worries. And we have so much NG we are exporting it. So yeah for us...no worries. And the Canadians are rapidly expanding the development our "North American" oil sands. So yeah for us...no worries. And the gov't has mandated better fuel economy and more biofuels production. So yeah for us...no worries. And the world will start developing their shale plays soon. So yeah or us...no worries. And big DW GOM fields with billions of bbls of oil are being discovered all the time. So yeah or us...no worries. And let's not forget those many billion of bbls of oil reserves being developed in Iraq and offshore Brazil. So yeah for us...no worries. And then there are those tens of billion of bbls of oil they'll soon be getting out of the Green River Shale. So yeah for us...no worries. Etc, etc, etc.

And so what are we going to do: step in front of that speeding train fill of oil drunk folks and hold up a white poster with the words "PEAK OIL...THE END IS NEAR" stenciled on it and expect them to hit the air breaks?

OK amigo...you first. LOL. IMHO we're not going to get any traction with THE TERM peak oil until we have another crisis. Which most will blame on something other than PO...at least for a while. "PO" is 2000ish. Get over it. LOL.

[dorlomin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', '
')OK amigo...you first. LOL. IMHO we're not going to get any traction with THE TERM peak oil until we have another crisis. Which most will blame on something other than PO...at least for a while. "PO" is 2000ish. Get over it. LOL.

[SeaGypsy]

I enjoyed your missing 'snark' Pops and thought it was pretty spot on.

With the site/s being discussed, the reason I never signed up was why bother having an 'open' board, then editing the hell out of it? The formats suck. The snooty attitude of senior members. The narrow focus as you mentioned. The necessity of sucking up to the chiefs to not find that your time has been wasted to post. They deserve what they got.

The intuition of the folks who started this site was quite on the mark, peak oil not being a narrow focus topic, but a dynamic one involving most aspects of life in some way or another- therefore most people in multiple ways. Open, dynamic, tolerant, welcoming but also confronting- peakoil.com matches the subject in a very organic way- that's why we're better and that's why we'll be here 'til the lights go out.

[MD]

Since I was the one to initially pull this thread out of view I suppose I should chime in.

I've watched these peak oil web sites for almost ten years now. In the early days The Oil Drum was more free flowing, but they made the decision to become more "academic" in their approach which was fine as was their choice and it did bring a lot of focus to the questions at hand.

At the time there were comparisons made and yes there were detectible sneers from those at TOD towards PO.com.

So now they have finished their academic exercise and are looking for their next focus and they want to come over here, sneer some more, and believe it or not complain that we need to become more like they were? And then to top it off they have been parading through here promoting their new web sites trying to steer their old TOD traffic to their pet location?

I have a message for those folks:

Kindly piss off

[SeaGypsy]

Funny really, how much Jan's post reeks of egotism. Here, even experts well known in the field publish anonymously. Visitors have to do a bit of real digging to find out who is saying what's being said here- meaning most don't and what's said is taken at face value rather than weighted according to a writer's fame.

The first line expressing concern over the opinions of a poster who is not taken very seriously around here- more seen as target practice- shows an utter lack of depth of knowledge of this board- laughable really.

Looks to me like Jan needs a job. We here have dirt farmers, oilmen, artists, laborers, road builders, permies, business people, single parents, aged pensioners, investor/ rentiers, pretty much the whole spectrum of professions and income brackets- perhaps poor Jan and his ilk may need to take a back seat here for a while and contemplate the reality that nobody needs them to do what they have been doing enough to pay them for it!

Peak oil was always going to make a lot of people redundant; even those clever enough to own a chunk of the real estate involved.

Hey Loki,- they need any farm hands for harvest up there?

[ROCKMAN]

dorlomin - Yes. Sadly enough I've thought for some time that our Brit cousins would be the poster child for what the US might experience years down the PO road. We have much greater natural resources and a system more suited for their development. But finite is still finite regardless of which side on the Big Pond you live on. Given the similarity in political and commercial structure we might be able to learn some lessons if we pay attention to what happens over there.

But we won't.

[JanLarsMueller]

Hello fellow peakists,

I am somewhat incredulous at the responses my post prompted and I cannot help but think there has been a gross misunderstanding of my intent and meaning.

First, I have nothing but respect for PO.com and its accomplishments. I would hope that respect is mutual.

Second, my post simply addressed questions and issues raised by a previous post, and explained why we did what we did. I did not come to PO.com to promote our site. We created an interim home for readers of The Oil Drum at the behest of our constituents who were also part of the TOD community. Of course some TOD refugees have found their way to PO.com and that is fine. We need more good websites devoted to exploring this issue, not fewer.

Lastly, some of you interpreted my statement that the TERM "peak oil" had reached a limit in its usefulness as a dismissal of the CONCEPT of peak oil and/or a slight of the peak oil community (how would I even be associated with ASPO-USA if that were the case?).

This has nothing to do with the substance of the issue. It is simply an observation that in talking with uninitiated audiences, starting the conversation with the words "peak oil" and an (often lengthy) explanation of what that specific term means is often not the best way to go about it. This observation is based on plenty of experience.

If more people simply understood that oil was getting more costly and difficult to extract from the Earth and that it will have great consequences, that would be a great accomplishment. They may appreciate the significance of "peaking" at some point, but it is not essential to start there to get them on the right track.

I hope my comments were a little thought-provoking, but I hardly think they are controversial. If I am missing something, please let me know. Otherwise, let us march forth.

With regards, Jan

[SeaGypsy]

Not really a great way to start- showing up as Pops said- fishing for TOD refugees for your site. Perhaps you would have got a better welcome had you been a bit more humble in your approach instead of credentializing right from the get go and hooking for your new site.

"We need more sites to discuss peak oil"= Huh? Why do we? Prove it please. You rock up here put exactly zero energy into this site, show no sign of wanting to- and call that respect- then insist we should respect you? (Spluttering into my coffee) Why should we care about your need for employment?

(PS open response to PM. I'm not a moderator here, just a poster who has put a few thousand hours of my life in here, who is very supportive of the site and it's moderators & founders. I don't ask for special treatment and I think it would be bad form of me to do so. I refrain from PMing wherever possible. I would love to be able to make a living writing on the issues we discuss here- not being paid doesn't hold me back. The site owners, mods, etc. are very protective of the site and rightfully so. I don't really get what Jan's call for special treatment here is about other than seeming to be what it has been called out as. I'm not engaging in PM on this matter. )

[JanLarsMueller]

Again, for the record, we were not fishing for TOD refugees. I was simply explaining why ASPO-USA had set up an interim site in collaboration with some TOD folks. We were doing our best to respond to a stated need, but I guess no good deed goes unpunished.

As far as multiple websites go, different audiences, different niches, different roles, complementary diversity, one size does not fit all, all valid reasons I think. Thanks, Jan

[ROCKMAN]

Jan - And glad you have. More is always better when it comes to our energy situation IMHO. Good luck.

[SeaGypsy]

Jan, we have plenty of posters here who only ever post in one forum. The forums are designed in such a way as they are effectively flexible enough for a 'one size fits all' description. Other posters are more general in their interest areas- their posts still find a home somewhere here- they don't find themselves deleted for rubbing some site PTB up the wrong way. This is what I was talking about when I used the word 'snooty'- something which went on a lot on TOD, why you have never heard from me there or many of my contemporaries on this site. As a writer here and elsewhere online there is nothing I resent more than arbitrary post deletion- whenever it happens to others in front of me I find myself offended for them. The format here isn't flashy, but it's very highly functional. The CoC is IMO state of the art, the moderators likewise. If your purpose here is something other than fishing for your new site, or a job, I can't see it in your posts. Just about every member I can think of here has lurked long enough to have something of a feel for the board before posting. The ones who haven't- well they get a feel pretty quick-

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', '
')"Peak oil" was a handy term that many latched on to quickly back in the day. Now we just have to live with it and the misdirection of the conversation it's producing these days.

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', '
')What's really frustrating is how little credit the increase in the price of oil is given to the situation.

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dorlomin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', '
')OK amigo...you first. LOL. IMHO we're not going to get any traction with THE TERM peak oil until we have another crisis. Which most will blame on something other than PO...at least for a while. "PO" is 2000ish. Get over it. LOL.

[Tanada]

Most of the people who join this website and actually participate in it become known to their fellow members through informational postings or discussions of posts made by others in the style of rational argument. When a new person joins it takes a while for the existing membership to accept what they say as fact without a great deal of corroborating evidence, and even our longest serving members still get told frequently just how wrong they are because of X,Y & Z. Sometimes the arguments are fact based and sometimes they are emotion based but with the exception of really over the top statements or exhortations to commit illegal activity statements are let to stand and be discussed. The only exception to this is SPAM, any statement asking for members to click a specific link for commercial purposes is subject to deletion without discussion.

Join in to the discussions and mentally gird your loins because this is an intellectual arena, many a member has come in a blaze of glory and quit in a twinkle of defeat. You have to be intellectually agile or stubborn as a mountain, or both, but if you invest the effort it will be worth your time.