$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dashster', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AdamB', '
')
Ugo Bargi has been pimping this idea pretty hard. Just another blogger who got it wrong the last time around, trying to recycle yet another version of already discredited ideas.
PeakOil is You
Seneca Cliff
Re: Seneca Cliff
by AdamB » Sun 30 Oct 2016, 18:17:07
What did he get wrong the last time around? Which of his ideas have been already discredited?
Forgive me but I cant find the post I said this in, to know the context. Ugo has been pimping the Seneca cliff idea for awhile, and he has been previously discredited in terms of his factual understanding of peak oil history. He appears to have only studied what I call "modern" peak oil, which corresponds roughing to more than a decade after Colin Campbell began declaring it. He is myopic in this regard, and because of it, says things that are just wrong. He then draws conclusions based on this limited and inaccurate knowledge, and looks foolish because of it. He needs access to a decent resource economist, but apparently doesn't have such access. Or care.
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."
Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
-
AdamB - Volunteer
- Posts: 11018
- Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26
Re: Seneca Cliff
by Revi » Mon 31 Oct 2016, 08:32:28
Okay, let's say he does get access to a resource economist, like say.... Gail Tverberg. Would she say the same thing?
I think so!
I think so!
Deep in the mud and slime of things, even there, something sings.
-
Revi - Light Sweet Crude
- Posts: 7417
- Joined: Mon 25 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Maine
Re: Seneca Cliff
by AdamB » Mon 31 Oct 2016, 22:11:30
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Revi', 'O')kay, let's say he does get access to a resource economist, like say.... Gail Tverberg. Would she say the same thing?
I think so!
I think so!
Gail isn't a resource economist. Not even close.
Jim Smith at SMU, give him a call. Svetlana Ikonnikova at UTA, she would be worth listening to, Gurcan Gulen would work. Amy Jaffe at UC Hastings.
Howard Gruenspecht of the EIA knows more than any single person has a right to about resource economics, Mike Lynch is pretty damn well informed as well. Emil Attanasi at the USGS qualifies.
There are others, but these folks all qualify as experts. Jim Hamilton might do as well, if only because he is one of the few economists I've seen correctly explain the differences between reserves and resources and understands how the conversion between the two happens, and how the rate of that conversion matters.
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."
Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
-
AdamB - Volunteer
- Posts: 11018
- Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26
Re: Seneca Cliff
by Revi » Wed 09 Nov 2016, 13:59:55
Well why wouldn't the curve go down a lot faster than it went up? Are we going to extract the remaining resource at the same rate we extracted the left side of the curve? Or will it tank? Why or why not?
Deep in the mud and slime of things, even there, something sings.
-
Revi - Light Sweet Crude
- Posts: 7417
- Joined: Mon 25 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Maine
Re: Seneca Cliff
by ROCKMAN » Wed 09 Nov 2016, 14:29:30
Revi - "...why wouldn't the curve go down a lot faster than it went up?" A valid point IMHO...depending on the resource and the economy involved. Which is why I think the entire Seneca Cliff debate is somewhat pointless if it stays in the realm of generalities.
First, their are hundreds of millions of folks who CANNOT fall off a SC for a simple reason: they have never climbed to the top of a Seneca Hill. They have never been far from the bottom...and never will be.
OK then: let's restrict the discussion to those economies that have reached the heights. Obviously not every one is at the edge of the cliff. And even the ones that are it might be just the cliff edge of a certain resource. There are some countries that are not close to the edge with respect to oil (like the KSA) but as far as local agriculture they've always been in the deep valley below. OTOH there's the US that had been sliding down the backside of our hill for about 45 years...not exactly what I would call a "cliff". But we are very rich in ag commodities.
So again if there is going to be a meaning debate about the possibility of a future SC one first has to specify the particular economy and then the specific commodity. Until that approach is taken I suspect some folks will keep talking past each other.
The "economy" can't fall off a cliff with regards to any major commodity because there isn't an economy but dozens of different economies that will follow different paths.
First, their are hundreds of millions of folks who CANNOT fall off a SC for a simple reason: they have never climbed to the top of a Seneca Hill. They have never been far from the bottom...and never will be.
OK then: let's restrict the discussion to those economies that have reached the heights. Obviously not every one is at the edge of the cliff. And even the ones that are it might be just the cliff edge of a certain resource. There are some countries that are not close to the edge with respect to oil (like the KSA) but as far as local agriculture they've always been in the deep valley below. OTOH there's the US that had been sliding down the backside of our hill for about 45 years...not exactly what I would call a "cliff". But we are very rich in ag commodities.
So again if there is going to be a meaning debate about the possibility of a future SC one first has to specify the particular economy and then the specific commodity. Until that approach is taken I suspect some folks will keep talking past each other.
The "economy" can't fall off a cliff with regards to any major commodity because there isn't an economy but dozens of different economies that will follow different paths.
-
ROCKMAN - Expert
- Posts: 11397
- Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
- Location: TEXAS
Re: Seneca Cliff
by SumYunGai » Wed 09 Nov 2016, 16:09:00
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'R')evi - "...why wouldn't the curve go down a lot faster than it went up?" A valid point IMHO...depending on the resource and the economy involved. Which is why I think the entire Seneca Cliff debate is somewhat pointless if it stays in the realm of generalities...
So again if there is going to be a meaning debate about the possibility of a future SC one first has to specify the particular economy and then the specific commodity. Until that approach is taken I suspect some folks will keep talking past each other.
So again if there is going to be a meaning debate about the possibility of a future SC one first has to specify the particular economy and then the specific commodity. Until that approach is taken I suspect some folks will keep talking past each other.
Okay, ROCKMAN, how's this?: The particular economy is the world economy and the specific commodity is the human population.
-
SumYunGai - Permanently Banned
- Posts: 421
- Joined: Fri 29 Jul 2016, 21:02:21
