[sparky]

.
@ step back , no worry , typical of this site ,thanks for the clarification .

I like this Peak Oil dynamic stuff , one of the things which always bugged me
was that there was a bit of a " one crisis fit all " scenario
each country will have different response to the crisis
Australia got so much coal we should be OK , bar the whining
maybe some countries will have a boom in alternative power
some will have riots and strikes
net exporters will spend more on weaponry and social bounties
net importers will have to work harder creating exports to pay for it
or become Greeks
everybody will drill more , in the most unlikely place
(there has been seismic mapping in the Paris streets, the geologic basin has some pockets of crude ,already exploited )

I don't really know , that's what make the subject so fascinating

[rockdoc123]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o my whole point in this thread was not to "discredit" the POD or rag on the ROCK, just to clarify that the POD isn't really the PO Dynamic at all, it's just the Price Dynamic – short of PO.

[Loki]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '
')Short of PO, increasing demand just leads to increasing production
Short of PO, a high price just means a glut is around the corner
Short of PO, declining production in one region just means someone else fills the void
Short of PO, China doing whatever is irrelevant long term

Short of PO.

[rockdoc123]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')n the other hand the cost of hydrodesulfurization at Kashagan was not born by $20/barrel crude. Nor are payoffs to the Sudanese President, or the cost to replace Block Zero in Angola. Something since has played a part in all these newly energized schemes. I suspect it is $100 oil.

[Ibon]

I briefly read through this thread. Difference in importance whether POD or PO? I'll add my two cents. If there is an importance it would be in how this could impact the public.

Because of the many parameters that are included in POD, it will be difficult to present to the public a PO argument because the polarization of opinion will use the parameters of POD as ammunition either in arguing for or against a peak. This will only then result in a never ending discussion similar like we see for climate change.

Also like climate change consequences will eventually dissolve the polarity. And like climate change there results the cruel reality that the polarity dissolves when the depleted resource base prevents meaningful mitigation.

This will be a bitter pill but some of the best medicines are bitter.

This thread is really partially about us, coping with the knowledge of PO or POD decades in advance, and frustrated watching our global society collectively pinned to inertia until consequences break the impasse when it is too late.

I'll go back to my own personal denial, pinning the moths on the mounting boards that I collected last night here at Mount Totumas. I escape pretending to be a naturalist in the late 19th century.

[ROCKMAN]

Pops – “…just to clarify that the POD isn't really the PO Dynamic at all, it's just the Price Dynamic”. Hmm…a bit more IMHO. But obviously price is a big part of the picture. Again, PO doesn’t explain $145/bbl oil in 2008. Likewise it doesn’t explain $50 oil in early 2009 just as it doesn’t explain $104 oil today. The same phenomenon can’t explain the price swing. And that’s all I’m saying: it’s much more complicated than how much oil the world is producing on any given day whether that rate is at peak or not. In the late 70’s the price of oil, adjusted for inflation, rose to the level we see today. Was that because folks realized PO was just 30 or so years away? Obviously not…there were dynamics involved that had nothing at all to do with global PO. In the mid 80’s did the price of oil drop to less than 10% of what it is today because folks realized we were years away from PO? Obviously not. The dynamic of surging oil prices crushing economic vitality created that low price. And in 2008 did oil top $140 because folks suddenly realized PO was upon us? Not IMHO. And when oil prices fell over 60% just a few months later was it because folks realized PO didn’t exist?

And: “Rockman says it's been going on since the 1970s (or earlier?) and encompasses just about everything. A term that encompasses just about everything over the course of decades is just not that useful.” No: POD doesn’t encompass everything. It only encompasses the factors that effect to price of oil and its availability. This, to me, is a rather useful concept. One of the constant themes in the discussions here is how much will oil production increase/decrease? And how much oil will the US economy import in the future? And how will oil cost in the future? How can there be a meaningful discussion about these questions if one only focuses on when PO has or will occur?

And: “Because of the many parameters that are included in POD, it will be difficult to present to the public a PO argument because the polarization of opinion will use the parameters of POD as ammunition either in arguing for or against a peak” Thank you: you make my point perfectly. Why is anyone wasting their time arguing for or against a peak? Does anyone here argue with folks as to whether the sun will rise tomorrow? LOL. As I’ve repeatedly (and just again) pointed out that whenever PO happened (say 2005) or will happen (20XX) it has had no direct bearing on the price of oil: 2008: $140+; 2009: $50; 2013: $100+. So again I ask for a poll: who cares about the date of PO more than the price of oil? Who thinks the date of PO has a direct relationship to the price of oil? Do folks think that the increase in US oil production is due to PO or due to the increase in the price of oil?

It seems some folks can’t get away from the thought that it’s either PO or the POD…pick one. PO is one of the components of the POD. But there are others, such as economic vitality, which have a much greater influence on the price and availability. That tells me some folks can’t begin to understand the true relationship between resource development, prices and geology. PO is the date on which the world will never produce more oil than it does on that date. No more…no less. PO doesn’t determine the price of oil. I’ve just proved that by pointing out the almost $100 per bbl range the price of oil has gone thru in just the last few years. To argue otherwise is to argue that PO caused $140+ oil or that the non-existence of PO caused $50 oil. Sorry…you can’t have it both ways.

As far as being difficult to present the POD to the public I don’t see how dumbing down the story helps or future. Would it be better the next time gasoline process spike up for the public to blame oil companies and speculators or to understand the relationships that encompass the POD? IOW if the public doesn’t grasp the entire picture why should we expect them to elect politicians who grasp the entire picture? And if we don’t have a political base that understands the situations and reacts accordingly why would expect meaningful change?

And Ibon make a great point: "This thread is really partially about us, coping with the knowledge of PO or POD decades in advance, and frustrated watching our global society collectively pinned to inertia until consequences break the impasse when it is too late." Exactly. As I've pointed out many time my first mentor was explaining the future impact of PO to me in the mid 70's. I've known about the reserve replacement issue (i.e. PO) for decades. And have watched companies struggle, often unsuccessfully, to increase our oil production base. Frustration is a very apt description. And unless our "global society" not only understand but reacts positively to the POD we'll have to wait for upheaval to break that inertia that keeps us expecting the continuation of BAU. Unfortunately I have little expectation of that happening.

[Pops]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'P')O doesn’t determine the price of oil.

[Pops]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'P')ops – “…just to clarify that the POD isn't really the PO Dynamic at all, it's just the Price Dynamic”. Hmm…a bit more IMHO. But obviously price is a big part of the picture. Again, PO doesn’t explain $145/bbl oil in 2008. Likewise it doesn’t explain $50 oil in early 2009 just as it doesn’t explain $104 oil today.

[sparky]

.
The price is not a marginal side issue ,it's the measuring yardstick of all transactions
it is a simple way of evaluating supply demand within a trading society in an energy context

money is shorthand for embedded energy
Raw materials costs are the right of access ( paying off the big guy )
plus the energy to transform , shape and distribute
the machinery , the refining process and the energy value of the wages and last but not least ,the cost of money itself

instead of performing a complex calculations , presto there is a simple number.

it means nothing by itself ,
a room full of greenbacks has not one shred of value until one go out of the room and exchange it for something else

There is temporary aberrations but cost in monetary units is the EROEI

[Loki]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '
')$50 oil in 09 of course was a result of worldwide recession, which falls perfectly into what we all know and love as the ol' "Bumpy Plateau."

[Pops]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Loki', 'T')he bumpy/undulating plateau was the first thing I thought of when I read Rockman's post on oil prices during the Great Recession. Though to be fair, the undulations in early discussions on the subject were in production, not price.

[sparky]

.
the bumpy plateau is only the rounding of the curve
I know the Earth is a sphere , but everywhere I went , seen at my scale it was flat , mostly

on the century scale , the plateau is hardly more than an inflection of a ballistic trajectory
throw a ball in the air , for a brief moment ,at the top of the curve , gravity doesn't seems to affect it
a very brief moment

[Pops]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sparky', '.')
I know the Earth is a sphere , but everywhere I went , seen at my scale it was flat , mostly

[sparky]

.
Undelying the Peak Oil Dynamic is how it will play out into politics
that one is tricky
All politics is domestic , but it overflow into geopolitics , big time
the track record of scarcity politics is either a management of scarcity or a grab by force
quite often a denial of access or interruption of transport lanes provoke violent responses

[ROCKMAN]

Pops – “But ignoring or even denying that main dynamic, the underlying curve - "what the geology can offer", is to miss - or ignore, the whole point.” I don’t think I ever “denied” geology wasn’t part of the dynamic. But back to the point I made earlier: if the “geology” is the “main dynamic” please explain how the geology produced $140+ oil in 2008 and then $50+ oil in 2009 and then $100 oil in 2013. Did the geology change that much in just a few years? I think it’s much easier to explain those price swings as well as what’s going on in the world today by analyzing all the components of the POD.

[Pops]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'i')f the “geology” is the “main dynamic” please explain how the geology produced $140+ oil in 2008 and then $50+ oil in 2009 and then $100 oil in 2013. Did the geology change that much in just a few years?

[Loki]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'i')f the “geology” is the “main dynamic” please explain how the geology produced $140+ oil in 2008 and then $50+ oil in 2009 and then $100 oil in 2013. Did the geology change that much in just a few years?

[ROCKMAN]

Pops - Didn't mean to piss you off, I studied your answer in detail and IMHO it fully supports the importance of the POD over just the effects of just PO. That's why I offered you a chance to clarify. Point for point every one of your statements references some element of the POD. Again, as I asked some time ago, what exactly is there disagreement about? The POD, which includes PO, is what’s affecting the bottom line of our energy situation. You ran down an impressive list of examples pointing that out.

It has been interesting to watch all the various interpretations of what folks thought I was trying to say. The discussion seems to have turned into a debate such as: potatoes are not beef stew. No…potatoes aren’t beef stew and beef stew isn’t a potato. But beef stew contains potatoes, in my Irish household anyway. PO and the POD are not two opposing ideas. Beef stew doesn't deny the existence of potatoes. And a potato, sitting in a bowl by itself, is not beef stew.

All POD was ever meant to do is just allow a shorthand way to refer to all those factors, including PO, that affect our energy future. It’s not some new revolutionary economic theory….just three letters of the alphabet. No more…no less.