[DamienJasper]

Word going around here is that Campbell pushed the date from 2007 to 2010 (what a surprise). Okay, but recent news stories I've read (and they're increasing) say that Campbell says 2007. Which is it? I suppose with how long it takes to research and write and publish an article, maybe the word hasn't trickled down yet, since apparently it was just changed this month? So is it 2007 or 2010?

Either way, I still have someone yet to explain why it is that when critics like Lynch (the only one with the gumpshin to stand up to 'the movement', give him credit for that) is wrong once or twice suddenly all his/their credibility is shot to hell. But Campbell has been wrong half a dozen times on THE DATE, but he still retains cred.

[RdSnt]

While I read material from those I consider to be reasonably capable and sincere I'm going with the premise that peak oil has occurred.
From my perspective it is the only sensible thing to do in order to move on to the real things that need to be worried about, preperation for what may come.

I know that the collective response is going to be slow, with more arguement and denial. Politicians are not going to act responsibly and even if they did and PO occurred in 2010 there isn't enough time to shift an entire country in a direction that will mitigate the inevitable problems. Hell, 30 years isn't enough time, not on a national or global scale.

Make the committment now by arbitraly declaring for yourself, today is Peak Oil, now what am I going to do about it?

[27010]

I dont really pay much attention to what Campbell says, he seems to shoot his mouth off and if you listen carefully to him, he doesnt really have a clue of when Peak will take place, just like everyone else. He listens to the other experts and takes a pluck at a best guess, which frequently turns out to be wrong.

[Taskforce_Unity]

"ASPO" model (or Colin Campbell's) recently shifted from 2007 to 2010 due to new deepwater information.

Doesn't really change anything, as for me i find Jean Laherrerre's work far more credible (around 2015).

[DamienJasper]

RdSnt;I appreciate your input but I think you've missed my point. There are dozens of posts about preparation. That's not what this post is about. I'm trying to clear up the vagueness of Campbell's most recent lottery pick for the date. Is it '07 or 10 is what I'm wondering. Also, my other question has yet to be answered to any real satisfaction.

[DamienJasper]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Taskforce_Unity', '"')ASPO" model (or Colin Campbell's) recently shifted from 2007 to 2010 due to new deepwater information.

Doesn't really change anything, as for me i find Jean Laherrerre's work far more credible (around 2015).

[rogerhb]

My take is we're on the bumpy plateau. The actual middle (peak) is irrelevent. Continual economic growth is going to stall soon, being crimped by supply/refinery problems, and recession is around the corner.

Getting physically, financially and mentally prepared for a recession is the best we can do. We no longer have the twenty years for a seamless transition, and I don't think we have ten years for a bumpy transition. I think we are heading for hard times but collapse is still a way off.

But, hey, that's just an opinion, and they and we are free at the moment.

[DamienJasper]

Look, no offesne, but what in the heck is with these posts? They are completey off the topic. I'm not asking for anyone's take on when the peak hits or what to do when it does. I just wanted two basic answers to two basic questions and only one of them has been answered. No one seems to want to fess up to the double standard applied to Campbell's critics.

There are other places for where this discussion is heading.

[Antimatter]

Don't obsess too much over the date. There should be a large error bar on any peak oil projection. 2010 +/- 5 years at least.

[Battle_Scarred_Galactico]

Campbells predictions on an exact date are flip-floppy yes, that's clear because he keeps moving them. He gets more respect because his views are based on fact, as opposed to PO "debunkers" who's views are based on wishfull thinking and bullshit.

[DefiledEngine]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Word going around here is that Campbell pushed the date from 2007 to 2010 (what a surprise). Okay, but recent news stories I've read (and they're increasing) say that Campbell says 2007. Which is it?

[Petrodollar]

To add my 2cts worth, I think we should also consider ODAC's "Mega Projects" data regarding this question. Their Oct 2005 report (which shows all the major projects going online from 2005-2010) still reflects a "permanent supply side gap opening up after 2007" - assuming that global demand remains at +2% per year, while depletion continues to decline at 5% per year (avg ranges from 4 to 6%). I have read the report, and its quite compelling.

Here's an ODAC quote from earlier this year:

“Our latest research confirms solidly our view that we cannot see any reasonable circumstances under which new supplies from expected mega oil projects could possibly meet world demand by 2008,” said a spokesman for London-based Odac.

Chris Skrebowski, a board member of Odac, has analysed all planned oil field projects worldwide with reserves of more than 500 million barrels and concluded that, on current timetables, output from new fields will be insufficient to offset more major oil producers moving into net production decline.

****

Lastly, as the Hirsch report states quite clearly, we need 10 to 20 years to avoid a serious liquid fuels crisis, and even with Laherrerre's date of 2015, I think we assume that a crisis as discussed by Hirsch is likely imminent. We might have a plateau that looks like little 'saw teeth' but from a macro perspective, its really not that important whether we reach an ultimate peak in 2007 or 2010 or 2015. IMO, question is really, what types of things should we be doing now - as individuals.

[killJOY]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')ither way, I still have someone yet to explain why it is that when critics like Lynch (the only one with the gumpshin to stand up to 'the movement', give him credit for that) is wrong once or twice suddenly all his/their credibility is shot to hell. But Campbell has been wrong half a dozen times on THE DATE, but he still retains cred.

[peaker_2005]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('killJOY', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')ither way, I still have someone yet to explain why it is that when critics like Lynch (the only one with the gumpshin to stand up to 'the movement', give him credit for that) is wrong once or twice suddenly all his/their credibility is shot to hell. But Campbell has been wrong half a dozen times on THE DATE, but he still retains cred.

[DamienJasper]

If "the date doesn't really matter" then why does he keep chasing it?

IMO, Lynch or Maugeri could come up with the best data in the world, and POers would still slap them around because for some reason they've latched themselves to the idea. Can't figure out why, but maybe I'll read the post that questions why every is so eager for it to happen. Saying that Michael Lynch's conclusions based on what Campbell writes is "Bullshit" has a reverse effect. If Lynch's conclusions based on Campbell's conclusions are bullshit, then that means Campbell is full of it as well. Bullshit in, Bullshit out.

And frankly, thus far, Campbell has been wrong every single time. This can't be said enough. I mean, we're 10 years past 1995 in case anyone's counting. Smooth going. And people still have the gumpshun to say that Lynch is the idiot?

And ALSO, no one ever calls Campbell's shady sources to the carpet either. Michael Lynch's most compelling point is that (despite few recent exceptions that have no reversed themselves) every time the date gets moved, it gets moved further into the future. That is an absolute that almost seems to prove his and Maugeri's point. I'm not asking for an "absolute date" because it's obvious at this point Campbell is never going to come up with it. I was just curious as to which his newest pick was.

Fact is tho, that if say, Lynch is ever wrong about any one thing, he's finished in your eyes and just an "economist". Campbell's is pretty much batting 1000 on being wrong, but he's the poster boy. It's hypocrisy.

[peaker_2005]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DamienJasper', 'I')f "the date doesn't really matter" then why does he keep chasing it?

IMO, Lynch or Maugeri could come up with the best data in the world, and POers would still slap them around because for some reason they've latched themselves to the idea. Can't figure out why, but maybe I'll read the post that questions why every is so eager for it to happen. Saying that Michael Lynch's conclusions based on what Campbell writes is "Bullshit" has a reverse effect. If Lynch's conclusions based on Campbell's conclusions are bullshit, then that means Campbell is full of it as well. Bullshit in, Bullshit out.

And frankly, thus far, Campbell has been wrong every single time. This can't be said enough. I mean, we're 10 years past 1995 in case anyone's counting. Smooth going. And people still have the gumpshun to say that Lynch is the idiot?

[seahorse2]

Damien,

Campbell gets credibility for being the leader of the peak oil movement. This is different from saying his predictions for the date of peak have credibility. He has cried wolf about imminent peak, and thus, his calculations have lost credibility. However, he personally gets the credit for bringing this issue and keeping this issue in the public debate.

Was is wrong for Campbell to constanly be crying imminent peak for the last 20 years? No. Here's why - according to the Hirsh report to the DOE, it would take the United States 20 years to avoid serious economic repercussions associated with world oil peak, and thats if the U.S. started an immediate crash program. So, for 20 years the world has done nothing to prepare. Therefore, I think its fair for Campbell to be trying to get the world's attention.

More and more people are now agreeing with Campbell that a world oil peak is likely, probably within the next 10 years. PFC Energy, for example, forecast a world oil peak between 2012 and 2015. Saudi Aramco, just last week, said world oil production would peak at 95 mbpd in about 2015.EnergyBulletin Exxon and BP, two world oil majors, are running websites devoted to the transition to sources of fuel other than oil. Greenspan, just this week, in a speech in Japan, said the world would begin transitioning to a new energy source. So, after all these years, Campbell is finding good company. However, if world oil does peak before 2015, the world should have listened to Campbell back in 1990.

All that being said, there have been some areas where Campbell has been pretty accurate in his predictions. For example, he predicted light sweet to peak in 2004. That probably happened. Light Sweet Peak
NonOpec Majors Peaked


Also, I did a summary of some of Campbell's earlier predictions in a previous thread. Here they are:

In short, Campbell has been more accurate in predicting some political/economic events than he has been in calculating reserves or estimating daily production of oil. As Lynch points out, Campbell's calculations of reserves keeps going up. For example, 1996, Campbell calculated world oil production would peak at less than 70mbpd. His 1996 # for world oil was 1750 gb. The world now pumps about 84 bpd and ASPO now calculates about 1850 gb (ASPO April 2005 newsletter).

However, here are some of Campbell's previous predictions of fallout from rising oil, which he says are caused by depletion issues. These are summarized, with my comments in parenthesis as to the accuracy:

1996 Campbell states:
(1) North Sea would peak in 1998 and then have about 8% depletion rate(peaked in 99 and has depletion rate of about 5-6%);
(2) Iraq will be needed, meaning "embargo relaxed", to produce all out beginning in "about" 2000. (Iraq attacked in 2003, but can't get it pumping all out).
(3) Graph shows 2005 oil at $30pb (price is now over $50);
(4) Graph shows total world oil at 1750 (he now says 1850);
(5) Graph shows maximum daily output of less than 70 bpd (world is pumping about 84 bpd);

1999 - Campbell's Speech to House of Commons

(1) Oil price shock around 2001 which will trigger a stock market crash (oil prices jumped in early 2000 followed by stock market crash);
(2) predicts hedge funds will manipulate the market (sound familiar?);
(3) Economic tension as Europe, America, Japan vie for access to ME oil, more missiles (what we had was tension over Iraq invasion, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Japanese troops in Iraq, EU tension with each other, some deploying troops, some not);
(4) Oil plateau around $30 pb (way off, now $50+);

March 23, 2000 Campbell wrote:

(1) OPEC will make conciliatory noise about raising quotas to maintain their illusion (sound familiar?);
(2) People finally realize no spare capacity (March 16th, 2005?, Goldman Sachs? Bank of Montreal? EIA updated monthly report of April 2005?);
(3) Upward momentum drives oil through $40 pb (past that);
(4) World, Opec, finally realize losing battle to offset depletion (not quite there yet);
(5) Opec will be 50% of world production capacity by 2009 (non opec oil is expected to be in decline by 2009 as per Peter Wells, writing an article for Oil and Gas Journal, Feb 21, 2005);
(6) calls to send in Marines (Iraq?);
(7) conventional oil peak around 2005 (he has modified this in ASPO April newsletter to 2006, however, EIA April Monthly Update expects a 700,000 bpd shortfall between estimated world oil production and estimated world demand);
(Cool All oil peak by 2010 (latest ASPO newsletter lowers this to 2007, see also Petroleum Review of Mega Projects, nothing coming online after 2007);
(9) 2008 swing share production will be gone and thereafter expect 3% decline rates (we'll see).

All in all, his calculations on oil and estimated daily production have been off, but many of his political/economic predictions have been fairly accurate.

[DamienJasper]

You're falling into a POer trap. I am well aware that there is evidence of a peak. But if you wanted evidence on either side, consider that what Campbell just did, shoving the date up 3 years, is exactly what Maugeri said would happen as new information became available. And if you want to run Lynch vs Campbell in the most basic terms, consider this:

Campbell: The Date is X.

Lynch: Sorry, that's wrong.

Lynch has been the "victorious" one every single time. There's no disputing that at all. Does that count as evidence or just an amazing and embarassing coincidence. You say it's good evidence that Hubbert said "US Peak 1970" and voila! It happened, so he's right. Well, both Maugeri and Lynch said (several times now) "Campbell is just going to push the date back again" And voila! He did. Maybe he can't call an exact date and I don't believe that's his intention. But he can call a spade when he sees it. And what is this "secret database" Campbell gets his info from that he never tells anyone about? Is that intellectual honesty?

Seahorse, for pete's sake. What is with POers and this kind of hysterical reaction? Evey time someone dare say that Campbell has egg on his face for being wrong AGAIN, you start pointing out evidence that the peak is coming. I know that and I don't deny it, so don't waste my time with another "Here's the evidence" diatribe. Change mental tracks once or twice and people won't label you guys cultists. What's so hard about that?

[DamienJasper]

Oh and on a sidenote: Didn't that former Saudi oil minister say 2015? And who is it that said Laherreree's work is more credible (also with 2015)? Why is it more credible? And how is Deffeys Thanksgiving '05 thing coming along?

[seahorse2]

Damien,

I guess I'm not following your point at all. Your original post asked if Campbell had moved his date back up from 2010 to 2007. The answer is on the ASPO website, which is "no." The latest ASPO newsletter list 2010 as a peak for all oils, as opposed to conventional oil (2004, that didn't change). So, I'm not sure why you question if the date has been moved forward? An article? If you want to know the date they predict for peak, check out their webpage. Seems pretty sensible.

However, it is you who are emotional about this. I'm not a Campbell cultist. For you to suggest that I am or am defending him, you haven't read up on the facts. I too, long before you did, questioned why ASPO moved their forecast (three times now in the last 12 months in case you didn't know). So, before you start making accusations, you should read my previous posts and learn the facts. If you had bothered reading my posts or reading the ASPO website, you would not only know the current ASPO forecast, but would also have known that the date of peak has changed three times in the last 12 months and that I have questioned this and even asked ASPO to tell us why. For example, what was the data they were using to cause the change, from what source. So, before you start making false accusations, learn the facts.

Lynch has never made a prediction of peak, so, you cannot argue he's been right. In fact, on the Lynch thread, he has been repeatedly asked to make a prediction, he will not do so. Further, if you look at the "experts" forum, you will see I made an "Open Challenge" to Lynch which he has never answered. I reiterated these same questions to him on the Lynch forum. He answered a few, but refuses to answer the rest. In the end, the problem with Lynch and the optimist is they lull the world into a false sense of security. They have optimistic opinions, but opinions not based on facts. Therefore, there is danger in simply believing things will be okay simply bc Campbell has been wrong in the past. In the end, this is what Lynch's opinion boils down to. Since the pessimist have been wrong in the past, don't worry about the future. Lynch's opinion is that the past is a predictor of the future - a logical fallacy.

So, why should anyone care what Campbell or Lynch say? They are both wrong, and we should throw them out. If everyone agrees world oil production will peak some day, let's try to figure out when that date is and take measures to avoid the economic fallout predicted by the Hirsh DOE report if timely action is not taken. If you haven't read the Hirsh report to the DOE, you should.

It seems reasonable to assume that Saudi Aramco, PFC Energy, and Greenspan are correct. If they are correct, from society's point of view, peak oil is imminent and, according to the Hirsh report, a Marshall energy plan needs to be implemented now.