by TonyPrep » Fri 18 Jan 2008, 17:41:18
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'B')y the way, I've never heard or read Lynch admit to peak occuring some day. Could you provide a link, because I would genuinely be interested.
Here you are then:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Mike Lynch', 'A') peak could occur due to depressed demand (technological innovation or taxes, etc.) but I don't anticipate it any time soon. I think there will be no peak due to geological reasons until at least 2030 and probably 2050, which assumes some "unconventional oil" such as gas to liquids and tar sands, and maybe shale oil.
Thanks for that, JD. When Lynch was active in the Lynch thread, I'd tried to get him to give some estimate but he never acknowledged a peak, the closest was that it would not occur within 60 years. This quote is earlier but does indicate that he might have conceded a peak before his denial became entrenched, though I noticed the guarded terms ("could occur", "due to depressed demand", no geological peak before 2050).
by TonyPrep » Fri 18 Jan 2008, 18:01:23
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'Y')ou're not telling us anything we don't know, or haven't accepted. You're not debating with people who believe in "infinite petroleum". You're debating with people who are skeptical about the predictions and FUD that peak liquids is imminent. We don't hold that position because we believe in abiotic oil, or an "infinite earth". We hold that position because the peak oil cassandras have been wrong so many times before. And, in fact, they are being proved wrong yet again, as we speak, by the rising liquids production reported by the IEA.
But, your last sentence implies that since predictions have been wrong in the past, they must always be wrong, implying oil will never peak.
My last sentence implies no such thing. You're resorting to a straw man again. I have told you EXPLICITLY that I accept that oil will peak someday, and you are simply trying to inject the statement that "oil will never peak" into my mouth in a statement where I said no such thing. The sentence means exactly what it says: peak predictions have been wrong again and again, and are currently being proved wrong yet again.
This is what I'm talking about:
“Never again will we pump more than 82 million barrels.”
-- T. Boone Pickens, 9th August 2004. On the Kudlow and Cramer Show, MSNBC.
“Global oil [production] is 84 million barrels [per day]. I don't believe you can get it any more than 84 million barrels."
-- T. Boone Pickens, addressing the 11th National Clean Cities conference in May 2005.
"I don't believe that you can increase the supply beyond 84 or 85 million barrel as day."
-- T. Boone Pickens, on "CNN In the Money", June 25, 2005.
"Supply is—you‘ve just about had it on supply; 85 million barrels a day world supply is about it. "
-- T. Boone Pickens, on Hardball with Chris Matthews, MSNBC, Aug. 26, 2005
SourceTotal garbage. The man is a laughing stock. And, like I said, he's currently being proved wrong. Voila:
If you don't mean to use the fact of past failed predictions to prove something, then why mention it at all? You must have thought it worthwhile and so I took the implication that occurred to me. It's the same reason why Yergin and other deniers bleat on about past failed predictions; to try to build a case in the minds of their audience that any predictions of peak should be ignored. The clear implication is that peak will never be a worry.
If you're trying to make some point other than putting down some history of failed predictions, let's hear it.
by TonyPrep » Fri 18 Jan 2008, 18:06:08
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'A')nd the most vociferous proponent of a past peak, recently, has been your very self, in this very thread.
There are two "peaks": conventional oil and liquids. Currently the stats show oil peaked in May 2005, as I pointed out when starting this thread. True, that may not be the ultimate peak, but it serves just fine to show what happens when oil production stops growing for 3 years: basically nothing. Global economic growth continues unimpeded.
Because of growing all liquids production and draw down of stocks. Your interesting observation has no value since overall oil products consumption has continued to increase. However, you, and others, keep pulling up straw men that most posters here have categorically stated peak has already occurred, when they haven't done that; only you have done that.
by TonyPrep » Fri 18 Jan 2008, 18:15:57
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'O')f course, you're going to fall back on the ol' workhorse of the early-peakists: "They'll all be right someday because oil will peak".
Wrong again, that is not my style. What I fall back on is reality, that the earth has limits. Talk of failed past predictions is meaningless.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'B')ut that's incorrect as well. Everyone is predicting that oil will peak someday, therefore, when oil peaks, everyone (including me) will be proved right. Not much glory there. The glory will go to the person who predicted that oil would peak AND correctly predicted the timing. That's not going to be Pickens, Campbell, Simmons or Deffeyes.
I hope you are able to bask in your glory; personally, who gets this particular prediction right is utterly meaningless.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'I')t's the sheer rejection of limits that seems incredible to me.
Why? We're not locked to the earth any more than Columbus was locked to the Old World. I'm sure it was obvious to the people in 15th century Europe that there was no transcending the limits of Europe. And I'm sure it was obvious to the people of the 19th century that there was no transcending the limits of the earth's atmosphere. Unexpected things happen. Game-changing events. I don't see anything wrong with aiming high, and thinking outside the petri dish.
So you are expecting unexpected things to happen? To rely on the human project being able to capture resources from outside our planet is a huge reliance, in my opinion. To resist changes that could help us live sustainably on the planet we currently inhabit is very dangerous. If we hit peak energy before we've got these massive projects (that aren't even being officially planned for) underway, would certainly ring the death knell for such dreams. And even if we managed to start such projects, there would be no guarantee of success or time-scales, so they could end up being an enormous waste of energy and other resources, that could have been better employed towards sustainable infrastructure here on earth.
by Concerned » Fri 18 Jan 2008, 18:24:19
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '
')There are two "peaks": conventional oil and liquids. Currently the stats show oil peaked in May 2005, as I pointed out when starting this thread. True, that may not be the ultimate peak, but it serves just fine to show what happens when oil production stops growing for 3 years: basically nothing. Global economic growth continues unimpeded.
I hope you are buying into the "opportunities" present in the current irrational sell of in the global markets.
We all know global economic growth will continue unimpeded forever and ever. PO be damned.
In fact I along with you think this is such a certainty (regards unimpeded economic growth) and the current "buying opportunities" available. That I would suggest MAXIMUM gearing into the market.
If thats what you really believe of course? Or you could just be blowing hot air... or perhaps even more simply a myopic world view where you wake up ride your bike see food on the shelves, cars on the road and purr like a cat that everything is A ok.
But hang in there JD PO is just barely, in it's very initial stages just starting to be felt.
"Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box."
-Italian Proverb
-
Concerned
- Heavy Crude
-
- Posts: 1571
- Joined: Thu 23 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
-
by skyemoor » Fri 18 Jan 2008, 19:50:54
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '
')Total garbage. The man is a laughing stock. And, like I said, he's currently being proved wrong. Voila:
What figures are you using; CO? C+C? AL? What was Pickens referring to?
You've attempted unsuccessfully to whitewash and mix up different metrics in the past, and it seems like you are still at it. You also quote the last quarter's data as if it is canon, when you know that these figures are almost always reduced in a couple of months.
And "All liquids" is almost a worthless measurement, as so much energy is put into making ethanol, refining tar sands, etc that the EROEI's are usually less than 2, which means diesel is consumed and/or natural gas will be rerouted from heating homes, powering generators, etc.
So get your story straight and quit acting like an IEA cheerleader.
