Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Post Peak Oil; The Slow Decline?

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.
Post a reply

Re: Post Peak Oil; The Slow Decline?

Unread postby FreddyH » Sun 25 May 2008, 01:40:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FreddyH', ' ')While it makes great fodder for the McDoomers, MQ's 2004 analysis was far more dire than we know now about the eventual unfolding.

Oh? And you think the eventual unfolding is over, then ?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')RT to MQ's musings on terminal decline of 5% per year, it was a ridiculous statement in 2004; as evidenced by the geologist based forecasts of the time (eg ASPO 1.5%). And even moreso today. The prevalence of recent bottom up studies has reduced the consensus of post peak decline projection to 1.2% ... an event that is unlikely until 2019.

Existing fields are showing a 4 to 5% decline today. You posit that new finds and production will not only offset that decline rate but reduce it to 1.2%?
We do not know what the decline rate will be. We can only look to the trend..and the trend is much higher than 5% for many major fields, Cantarell, North Sea, Prudhoe..all in double digits.
Not to mention the decline rate of exports from oil producing countries as internal consumption rises or they reduce production to preserve their reserves...or war is waged over the remaining scarce resources.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s MQ stated, the consequences of higher crude prices will be felt by the lower class of society first. Their lack of wealth & income makes them vulnerable to food/energy inflation. At no point in the future will the middle class (wealthiest 10%) and upper class (top 1%) significantly notice Peak Oil.

Sorry, they already notice it and I live in a rich area. And since when was the middle class the wealthiest 10%???

Monte, your rhetoric of 2004 was hardly innovative. In 1989, Colin Campbell proclaimed that the then current 65.8-mbd All Liquids production was indeed Peak and Hubbert's 1974 forecast of 111-mbd (conv) could never be achieved. Regular Conventional crude flow was 58-mbd at the time.

2008 represents the 20th consecutive year that the media has had to endure these annual proclamations and the usual cornucopia of ramifications...

Significant decline in mature conventional crude fields has been with us forever. According to IEA, it averages 8%/yr in these fields that are not in growth mode. When blended with immature conv fields and non-conventionals, they calculate the Underlying Decline Rate to be 3.75% presently.

My own calculations have this UDR factor becoming significant in 1999. I have it rising each year by 0.33-mbd with status presently at 3.6% (3.1-mbd) annually in 2008.

The tantalizing mystery on this issue, frankly, is whether UDR will level off at 4.5% for a lengthy era as it seems to have in largest mature and diversified petroleum province (USA) or if instead it will slowly increase towards that 8% ultimate.

IMHO, a sub 4% plateau of UDR is most probable 'cuz any increased rate jeopardizes the reconciling of a pessimistic production profile with recognized magnitudes of URR.

In short, a near term 4% indicates a URR of 1961-Gb. 5% points to 1804-Gb. In light of the avg of recognized estimates being 4001-Gb (including the current ASPO 2450-Gb) and that there is no estimate below 1998-Gb (EWG), aggressive decline rates do not seem to be in the cards...

Resolution of this phenom will determine if All Liquids is headed for a virtual plateau or a more aggressive supply decline rate.
www.TrendLines.ca/scenarios.htm Home of the Real Peak Date ... set by geologists (not pundits)
User avatar
FreddyH
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 321
Joined: Mon 14 Jan 2008, 04:00:00
Location: The Yukon
Top

Re: Post Peak Oil; The Slow Decline?

Unread postby FreddyH » Sun 25 May 2008, 04:48:27

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'H')owever, I'll use CERA as a source...and we know how optimistic they are..
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')utput from the world's oil fields is declining at 4.5 percent per year -- significantly slower than the 8 percent rate many analysts have assumed, according to a study by Cambridge Energy Research Associates released Thursday.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')epletion never sleeps. Consider the enormous implications of a 4.5% decline rate. If you start with 85 million barrels a day in 2007, but lose 4.5% each year, by 2017 you’ve lost 31 mbd. That’s the equivalent of losing the world’s four largest oil producers: Saudi Arabia, Russia, the USA and Iran. By 2030, you’ve lost 55 mbd, or as much as all the non-Opec nations now provide. Remarkably, CERA finds this to be “good news.”


Your ramblings are so disengenuous, Monte. Above, CERA is clearly describing its efforts to measure the Underlying Decline Rate. But u forgot to mention that CERA goes on to present a case that their estimate of URR is 4821-Gb.

Both in 2004 and again today u say:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')... but once the decline really gets under way, liquids production will fall relentlessly by 5%/year".


Monte, u have failed to connect the dots.

Whereas it is your position that 5% decline is immanent, let me walk u thru some numbers...

4821-Gb = URR (CERA)
comprised of:
1174-Gb = Past (to Dec 2007)
1372-Gb = Reserves (BP)
2275-Gb = Future Resources (CERA)

The 4.5% year-after-year decline based production profile that u started to describe in your post only adds up to 697-Gb. If we add the 1174-Gb past consumption, we end up with an inferred URR of 1871-Gb. That's 127-Gb less than any recognized estimate of URR.

And it leaves 675-Gb of BP's URR stranded. Monte, u can't have "stranded URR" ... it's an oxymoron.

Thus, if we are to believe BP, one must agree that the post peak decline rate is less than 4.5%. Monte, it gets worse! Even BP admit publicly that their Reserves understate the ultimate resource. They unabashedly say it is in excess of 2200-Gb. This adds more than 800-Gb to production that must be added to your scenario and further softens that ominous decline rate.

I acknowledge that determining the decline rate is fuzzy due to unknown future UDR rates and associated time line. But the process of agreeing on a URR and working backwards to exhaust it gives a very narrow range of error.

If u sincerely believe that reserves and future resources are a mere 697-Gb, then i agree that the 4.5% Decline Rate is accurate. But if u are committed to a higher URR, then u must pare down your estimated Decline Rate to exhaust it.

OTOH, if post peak a decline rate presents itself that is consistently over 1.5%, then we are very wrong about our estimates of URR...

On the topic of Decline, the May version of my Scenario-2300 is the first in which i use a progressive Decline Rate. For conventional crude and some other non-conventional components of All Liquids, i start with a very small decline rate (say 1/2 or 1%) and raise it over time to 8% or whatever is felt appropriate (15% for deep sea).

The June version of the TrendLines Scenarios will incorporate this same decline rate methodology ... rather than the past employment of a 1.3% rate to exhaustion. If front loads each scenario profile and diminshes the long tails.
www.TrendLines.ca/scenarios.htm Home of the Real Peak Date ... set by geologists (not pundits)
User avatar
FreddyH
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 321
Joined: Mon 14 Jan 2008, 04:00:00
Location: The Yukon
Top

Re: Post Peak Oil; The Slow Decline?

Unread postby TonyPrep » Sun 25 May 2008, 05:36:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KillTheHumans', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'Y')ou could be right but I think you overestimate people's willingness to change behaviours and underestimate the effect on the economy of those changes.

Fortunately, it doesn't really matter what I think about over/under estimates, it only matters that there is a system in place which works quite well balancing such things out already, and the answer is basically millions upon millions of individual decisions aggragated into what we call "economics". The only question is where does the price balance supply against demand the best?
But that is a continually moving target. If, say, $140 per barrel finally evens out production and consumption, then that would be a temporary balance, until production starts to decline. But you suggested that the solution was easy (through behavioural changes). It was that comment that I was referring to. And, in my opinion, it does matter how people feel about those changes and what effect those changes have on the economy and the society that that economy is imbedded in.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KillTheHumans', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'E')ven if peak oil could be "solved", in the way you claim, that would not solve the unsustainable nature of our societies.

Peak oil, depending on which version of it you subscribe to of course, doesn't need SOLVED because its a make believe problem.
What about the version that has oil production failing to match demand? That is not make believe, it is happening now.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KillTheHumans', 'I') could point to the fact that the planet is obviously "sustaining" all of us right now ( within reason of course ) but I recognize that in this place, such inconvenient realities aren't allowed to interfere with the speculation at hand.You could point to that, but it requires a time predicate: now. Just because a society can be sustained for some period of time, doesn't make it sustainable, unless you specify the time period. I didn't specify a time period. The world is living unsustainably. If you reject that, please let us know how consuming finite resources, at increasing rates, and damaging our own habitat, can be sustained.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Post Peak Oil; The Slow Decline?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sun 25 May 2008, 11:57:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FreddyH', ' ')Monte, your rhetoric of 2004 was hardly innovative.


Just accurate. I note that you just ignore the points I made.

You seem to infer my projections are wrong by implying that the unfolding is over.

It hasn't even started.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Post Peak Oil; The Slow Decline?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sun 25 May 2008, 12:01:46

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FreddyH', ' ')Your ramblings are so disengenuous, Monte.


Those "ramblings" are ASPO.

Read the link.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Post Peak Oil; The Slow Decline?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sun 25 May 2008, 12:16:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')nitially it will be denied. There will be much lying and obfuscation. Terrorists and environmentalists will be blamed. The call for more exploration and exploitation of oil and gas will become a media event. The dash for gas will become more frenzied. People will realize nuclear power stations take up to ten years to build. People will also realize wind, waves, solar and other renewables are all pretty marginal and take a lot of energy and time to construct. Air quality will be ignored as coal production and consumption expand once more. Countries, especially the oil producing ones, due to their total dependence on oil revenues, will decide to reserve oil and later gas supplies for their own people. Conservation and energy efficiency will go a long way to cut use and meet new demand, but once the decline really gets under way, liquids production will fall relentlessly by 5%/year. Energy prices will rise remorselessly. Inflation will become endemic and a world depression will descend upon us. Every year, unrelentingly, we will require further efficiencies in our energy use; our slice of the pie will get smaller and smaller. Whole industries will disappear: motor racing, fast food, motels, private boats and airplanes, and all related industries. We will cut and pare and try to grow our way out of it under our current debt-based monetary system (since it is all we have) but it will not happen.


Look at what I wrote in context. No matter what the terminal decline rate is, the same socio-economical ramifications will unfold. And it matters not whether it is actual "peak oil" decline or the preception of it being imminent that will cause the unfolding.

For example, right now, it is not only supply/demand fundamentals, but the preception that peak oil may be just on the horizon that is driving up oil prices...which is having a domino effect in other commodities, through either costs or displacement via biofools.

We don't know what the URR's are and we don't know what the decline rate will be.

I still think a 5% decline rate is conservative.

Time will tell. I just think it is foolish to bet on the come.

And that's what we are doing.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Post Peak Oil; The Slow Decline?

Unread postby bodigami » Sun 25 May 2008, 15:01:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KillTheHumans', '(')...)
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Peleg', '5')% per year. Production will be down at least 5% by next year August.

Thats what people been saying...since oil peaked in 2005. Now that it has apparently peaked...again....I guess people will say it...again...and 20 years from now we'll be having this conversation about peak something else. For the record, US decline in production rates have varied, but spanning 35+ years now they are about 1.7%.
(...)


Light Sweet Crude Oil peaked in 2005 and we're in a plateau since then. The production may increase, but it's a lie that we "peaked again". Unless you're counting every liquid that's burnable, including biofuels. Which has increased the price of food. The riots are starting to happen in all countries, including those in Europe.
bodigami
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 1921
Joined: Wed 26 Jul 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Post Peak Oil; The Slow Decline?

Unread postby KillTheHumans » Sun 25 May 2008, 15:58:14

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KillTheHumans', ' ') I could point to the fact that the planet is obviously "sustaining" all of us right now ( within reason of course ) but I recognize that in this place, such inconvenient realities aren't allowed to interfere with the speculation at hand.

The planet is only "sustaining" all of us right now through drawdown while the carrying capacity is being continuously diminished. Overshoot is not a sustainable condition.


Well, that is what you continue to claim. And we're all still here, overshooting away.

Myself, I think I'll bet on a humans ability to adapt to, and to adapt, their environment to their own ends over McDoomers who are unhappy that everyone else on the planet just won't notice their pet theories and DIE already.
Freddy RULZ!

www.TrendLines.ca/scenarios.htm Home of the Real Peak Date ... set by geologists (not pundits) (or bankers) (or web "experts")
User avatar
KillTheHumans
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 779
Joined: Mon 17 Sep 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Rockies
Top

Re: Post Peak Oil; The Slow Decline?

Unread postby KillTheHumans » Sun 25 May 2008, 16:15:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KillTheHumans', ' ')The only question is where does the price balance supply against demand the best?
But that is a continually moving target. If, say, $140 per barrel finally evens out production and consumption, then that would be a temporary balance, until production starts to decline.


Of course its a continually moving target. Which is why much of the McDoomer conversation is hysterical. They just HATE the idea that there isn't a nice clean peak, down the slope we go, instantly followed by mayhem and starvation. The world doesn't work the way they want it to, so they get cranky.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '
')But you suggested that the solution was easy (through behavioural changes). It was that comment that I was referring to. And, in my opinion, it does matter how people feel about those changes and what effect those changes have on the economy and the society that that economy is imbedded in.


Cures are easy, its stupid to use crude for moving around people. We waste lots of crude doing stupid things. Change our behavior and presto, our grandkids can have this argument over how silly THEIR behavior is, and they can kick the can another 50 years down the road.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KillTheHumans', '
')Peak oil, depending on which version of it you subscribe to of course, doesn't need SOLVED because its a make believe problem.
What about the version that has oil production failing to match demand? That is not make believe, it is happening now.


Apparently we peaked again 1st Quarter 2008, which means, not only do we have ANOTHER peak, but production certainly wasn't falling most recently!

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '
')The world is living unsustainably. If you reject that, please let us know how consuming finite resources, at increasing rates, and damaging our own habitat, can be sustained.

I don't consider a single world to be the sum total of resources available to the human race. It strikes me as thinking awful...small. Why think small? Humans are already shipping our cars off to nearby planets, who knows what is next?
Freddy RULZ!

www.TrendLines.ca/scenarios.htm Home of the Real Peak Date ... set by geologists (not pundits) (or bankers) (or web "experts")
User avatar
KillTheHumans
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 779
Joined: Mon 17 Sep 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Rockies
Top

Re: Post Peak Oil; The Slow Decline?

Unread postby KillTheHumans » Sun 25 May 2008, 16:17:22

dup
Last edited by KillTheHumans on Sun 25 May 2008, 16:20:20, edited 1 time in total.
Freddy RULZ!

www.TrendLines.ca/scenarios.htm Home of the Real Peak Date ... set by geologists (not pundits) (or bankers) (or web "experts")
User avatar
KillTheHumans
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 779
Joined: Mon 17 Sep 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Rockies
Top

Re: Post Peak Oil; The Slow Decline?

Unread postby KillTheHumans » Sun 25 May 2008, 16:17:44

dup
Freddy RULZ!

www.TrendLines.ca/scenarios.htm Home of the Real Peak Date ... set by geologists (not pundits) (or bankers) (or web "experts")
User avatar
KillTheHumans
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 779
Joined: Mon 17 Sep 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Rockies
Top

Re: Post Peak Oil; The Slow Decline?

Unread postby KillTheHumans » Sun 25 May 2008, 16:27:22

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('zensui', '
')
Light Sweet Crude Oil peaked in 2005 and we're in a plateau since then. The production may increase, but it's a lie that we "peaked again".


I don't know about that. I always thought peaking was peaking, and I saw this neat graph over at TOD which sure looked like the plateau had turned into another peak!

Am I missing some piece of the game now? We subdivide all the fluid types, see which one follows our preconceived notions and proclaim THAT one to be relevant?

I don't remember Hubbert having one graph for 42API gravity crude, and another for 13 API, and another for tar sands, and another for GTL's, was that work hidden somewhere in the Appendix or did the McDoomers invent it to so they can proclaim peak something every other week to keep themselves interested in the topic, since the cool stuff like grid failure and starvation among fat American consumers is taking so long?
Freddy RULZ!

www.TrendLines.ca/scenarios.htm Home of the Real Peak Date ... set by geologists (not pundits) (or bankers) (or web "experts")
User avatar
KillTheHumans
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 779
Joined: Mon 17 Sep 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Rockies
Top

Re: Post Peak Oil; The Slow Decline?

Unread postby DantesPeak » Sun 25 May 2008, 16:38:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FreddyH', '
')2008 represents the 20th consecutive year that the media has had to endure these annual proclamations and the usual cornucopia of ramifications...


Just about every energy analyst, commentator, and energy industry expert failed to realize at that time that light sweet crude peaked out in 2005. Even here, that concept was subject to much debate.

So the fact that one person in a vast multitude of analysts didn't exactly predict how things would turn out many years means almost nothing in the scheme of things.

People don't come to this web site to listen to your feeble theory that because a couple of people failed to eaxctly call PO years in advance that we should disregard what they say forever. If that's true, then we should disregard everything you are saying - because your long term record is nothing to brag about either.

I'm sorry for the blast, but I don't want newcomers to this site to think that your lame analysis represents any kind of consensus at PO.com.
Last edited by DantesPeak on Sun 25 May 2008, 16:42:44, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
DantesPeak
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6277
Joined: Sat 23 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: New Jersey
Top

Re: Post Peak Oil; The Slow Decline?

Unread postby mos6507 » Sun 25 May 2008, 16:38:07

The reason it's a peak is that light sweet crude is at the top of the EROEI pyramid. All other liquids are more expensive to produce. So as the grade of crude oil on the market shifts from light to heavy, even if production stays on a plateau or increases slightly, the final refined oil products will continue to become more expensive. That's in addition to the greater energy being exerted to get at the remaining light oil in remote locations as well.
mos6507
 
Top

Re: Post Peak Oil; The Slow Decline?

Unread postby TonyPrep » Sun 25 May 2008, 17:42:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KillTheHumans', 'O')f course its a continually moving target. Which is why much of the McDoomer conversation is hysterical. They just HATE the idea that there isn't a nice clean peak, down the slope we go, instantly followed by mayhem and starvation. The world doesn't work the way they want it to, so they get cranky.
Sorry, KTH, but that's nonsense. "They" don't hate any such thing. That is purely your desire to mischaracterise the position of others to appear to make your position reasonable.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KillTheHumans', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '
')But you suggested that the solution was easy (through behavioural changes). It was that comment that I was referring to. And, in my opinion, it does matter how people feel about those changes and what effect those changes have on the economy and the society that that economy is imbedded in.
Cures are easy, its stupid to use crude for moving around people. We waste lots of crude doing stupid things. Change our behavior and presto, our grandkids can have this argument over how silly THEIR behavior is, and they can kick the can another 50 years down the road.
Cures are not easy, KTH. You've followed the path of so many others here. You think you can see a reason to be hopeful and so you then assume that your pet solution will actually happen in a timely and smooth manner, without bad ramifications. You overestimate people's willingness to change and underestimate the knock on effect of those changes.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KillTheHumans', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KillTheHumans', '
')Peak oil, depending on which version of it you subscribe to of course, doesn't need SOLVED because its a make believe problem.
What about the version that has oil production failing to match demand? That is not make believe, it is happening now.
Apparently we peaked again 1st Quarter 2008, which means, not only do we have ANOTHER peak, but production certainly wasn't falling most recently!Nice sidestep. What about the fact that production has not kept pace with consumption for the last 18 months? That is not fantasy, and is why prices have continued to rise remorselessly. Do you think such rises are having zero effect?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KillTheHumans', 'I') don't consider a single world to be the sum total of resources available to the human race. It strikes me as thinking awful...small. Why think small? Humans are already shipping our cars off to nearby planets, who knows what is next?Very amusing, KTH. I wonder what the market is for cars on other planets. Maybe Ford and GM can open up whole new markets. Your optimism is admirable, KTH but, in case you hadn't noticed, we still have just this one planet to live on. So try answering the question based on the resources and environment we have now, rather that what we have in your dreams.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Post Peak Oil; The Slow Decline?

Unread postby KillTheHumans » Sun 25 May 2008, 19:11:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DantesPeak', '
')
I'm sorry for the blast, but I don't want newcomers to this site to think that your lame analysis represents any kind of consensus at PO.com.


Yeah, wouldn't want those newbies to see the absolutely wonderful set of data that Freddy has assembled and come to the realization that this McDoomer routine has been going on for a LONG time now, would we? :-D
Freddy RULZ!

www.TrendLines.ca/scenarios.htm Home of the Real Peak Date ... set by geologists (not pundits) (or bankers) (or web "experts")
User avatar
KillTheHumans
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 779
Joined: Mon 17 Sep 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Rockies
Top

Re: Post Peak Oil; The Slow Decline?

Unread postby KillTheHumans » Sun 25 May 2008, 19:33:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'S')orry, KTH, but that's nonsense. "They" don't hate any such thing. That is purely your desire to mischaracterise the position of others to appear to make your position reasonable.


Really Tony? Have you ever read what Kuntsler writes? Have you read some of the non technical, racist stuff on this site? There is hate within the Doomer community, hate against the yuppies and suv drivers and religious, or non religous, the powers that be, people who don't hug tree's, who don't appreciate the desert, the successful, etc etc.

I simply threw in a "hate" for the information which doesn't slot into its predetermined position in a way which prevents other people from coming along and noticing, no, sorry Mr McDoomer, that isn't what you said it was. I have many examples, but I'm sure I've already mentioned many of them to you.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KillTheHumans', 'C')ures are easy, its stupid to use crude for moving around people. We waste lots of crude doing stupid things. Change our behavior and presto, our grandkids can have this argument over how silly THEIR behavior is, and they can kick the can another 50 years down the road.
Cures are not easy, KTH.


Really? Gas prices last year were lower than now, right? This year, I will drive as much as last year, and I will spend less money on gasoline. Because I use less gasoline for the same amount of driving, in other words, efficiency. Multiply my solution by how many millions of people and yes Tony, some solutions are easy. Maybe not popular, but thats different than easy.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '
')You've followed the path of so many others here. You think you can see a reason to be hopeful and so you then assume that your pet solution will actually happen in a timely and smooth manner, without bad ramifications. You overestimate people's willingness to change and underestimate the knock on effect of those changes.


I disagree of course. Glancing around at the changes happening around us every day, I am seeing exactly the sort of changes most reasonable people would expect of higher fuel and/or energy prices. Tell me Tony, did you ever speculate on how long it would take a car manufacturer to prototype a real and working fuel cell vehicle to the general public, at any point in time over the past few years?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '
')

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KillTheHumans', 'A')pparently we peaked again 1st Quarter 2008, which means, not only do we have ANOTHER peak, but production certainly wasn't falling most recently!Nice sidestep.


I do well at using facts in lieu of speculation if at all possible. When someone proclaims "decreasing production!" it strikes me as interesting to note that recently, no such thing has happened.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '
')What about the fact that production has not kept pace with consumption for the last 18 months? That is not fantasy, and is why prices have continued to rise remorselessly. Do you think such rises are having zero effect?


I've seen that comment bandied about, as well as fuel stocks in the US operating within their 5 year average. You would think, that in the worlds largest consumer of oil, that a drawdown of stocks would be noticable? If it isn't, that means, the evidence must be coming from someone elses stocks being drawn down. Do you have any reference to who's stocks have been falling for 18 months now?

And I certainly HOPE that price rises are having an effect, I think thats the entire POINT of price rises. Myself, I think Shiek Ahmed Yamani was right back in the 80's, and his revenge will be the same thing happening again.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '
') Your optimism is admirable, KTH but, in case you hadn't noticed, we still have just this one planet to live on. So try answering the question based on the resources and environment we have now, rather that what we have in your dreams.

I don't have to dream about what can happen within the solar system, plenty of science fiction writers do that better than I ever could. But I refuse to be trapped into a "one world"argument when we are already shipping the greatest example of our consumer products to other planets, where they drive around for YEARS, and guess what Tony? THEY DON'T RUN ON OIL!!

If we're smart enough to do it right on other planets, I don't consider it thinking small to applying the same concepts here.
Freddy RULZ!

www.TrendLines.ca/scenarios.htm Home of the Real Peak Date ... set by geologists (not pundits) (or bankers) (or web "experts")
User avatar
KillTheHumans
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 779
Joined: Mon 17 Sep 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Rockies
Top

Re: Post Peak Oil; The Slow Decline?

Unread postby KillTheHumans » Sun 25 May 2008, 19:35:47

dup

Whats up with the technical things? Lots of connection and speed issues, lots of dup posts.
Freddy RULZ!

www.TrendLines.ca/scenarios.htm Home of the Real Peak Date ... set by geologists (not pundits) (or bankers) (or web "experts")
User avatar
KillTheHumans
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 779
Joined: Mon 17 Sep 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Rockies
Top

Re: Post Peak Oil; The Slow Decline?

Unread postby TonyPrep » Sun 25 May 2008, 20:15:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KillTheHumans', 'R')eally Tony? Have you ever read what Kuntsler writes? Have you read some of the non technical, racist stuff on this site? There is hate within the Doomer community, hate against the yuppies and suv drivers and religious, or non religous, the powers that be, people who don't hug tree's, who don't appreciate the desert, the successful, etc etc.
What has that got to do with what I wrote? Let me remind you of what you posted, since that is what I said who you term "doomers" did not hate: "They just HATE the idea that there isn't a nice clean peak, down the slope we go, instantly followed by mayhem and starvation."

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KillTheHumans', 'G')as prices last year were lower than now, right? This year, I will drive as much as last year, and I will spend less money on gasoline. Because I use less gasoline for the same amount of driving, in other words, efficiency. Multiply my solution by how many millions of people and yes Tony, some solutions are easy. Maybe not popular, but thats different than easy.
Unpopular things are not easy and the easy things aren't always practical. Again, you assume that your pet solution will be adopted smoothly, in a timely fashion and without repercussions. I don't know how you got more efficient this year. If it is driving a different vehicle, that is not easy for a significant number of people. If it is driving more carefully, I doubt that will have the effect you claim. If it is keeping the car in tip-top condition, most people would find that more difficult, or less affordable, than you. As fuel becomes scarcer, people will be forced to drive less but that will have a knock on effect on the economy.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KillTheHumans', 'G')lancing around at the changes happening around us every day, I am seeing exactly the sort of changes most reasonable people would expect of higher fuel and/or energy prices. Tell me Tony, did you ever speculate on how long it would take a car manufacturer to prototype a real and working fuel cell vehicle to the general public, at any point in time over the past few years?
Well, the changes I've seen are increasing disquiet over fuel costs and lobbying for governments to bring the costs down. I've seen increasing numbers of stories about hopes for this, that and the other technologies to substitute. I haven't seen much evidence of reduced driving, of careful driving or of a significant switch to more efficient vehicles. Some of that is happening, no doubt, but I haven't seen much evidence, if any. Of course I've speculated on fuel cell cars and of course there have been prototypes. But I don't expect to see them become affordable to enough people, quickly enough, to make much of an impact inside 20 years.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KillTheHumans', 'I') do well at using facts in lieu of speculation if at all possible. When someone proclaims "decreasing production!" it strikes me as interesting to note that recently, no such thing has happened.
I didn't say it had.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KillTheHumans', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '
')What about the fact that production has not kept pace with consumption for the last 18 months? That is not fantasy, and is why prices have continued to rise remorselessly. Do you think such rises are having zero effect?
I've seen that comment bandied aboutWhat do you mean, "bandied about?" What data have you seen that would counter my statement? If we simply must discard all public sources of information, as you seem to imply, what is the point of discussing the subject at all? It would thus come down to your saying one thing and someone else saying another thing. So you'll ask us to believe your fairy tale, in preference to someone else's. According to the EIA, world stocks decreased by an estimated 278 million barrels last year. The IEA are a bit more optimistic with their forecasts and only show a stock decline last year (not 2006, as the EIA does). OPEC's monthly report has stocks down in 2006 and 2007 (as well as the 1st quarter of this year). So are you asking us to ignore all public sources and, instead, rely on your gut instinct?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KillTheHumans', 'I') don't have to dream about what can happen within the solar systemSo what? It is exactly what you are doing, anyway. You're pointing to a couple of small devices that have made it to another planet and extrapolating that to fulfill your dreams. Currently, it is nothing more than dreams because there are no plans, with a schedule, for drawing down resources of other planets. However, the dream does allow you to conveniently forget that, in the meantime, we have to make sure that we don't run short of a vital resource here, in this planet, and don't trash our environment so much that the civilisation that can enable your dream to become reality doesn't collapse.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KillTheHumans', 'I')f we're smart enough to do it right on other planets, I don't consider it thinking small to applying the same concepts here.What is it that we've done right? Where are these human communities on other planets that have managed to figure out a sustainable way of life?
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Post Peak Oil; The Slow Decline?

Unread postby DantesPeak » Sun 25 May 2008, 20:53:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KillTheHumans', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DantesPeak', '
')
I'm sorry for the blast, but I don't want newcomers to this site to think that your lame analysis represents any kind of consensus at PO.com.


Yeah, wouldn't want those newbies to see the absolutely wonderful set of data that Freddy has assembled and come to the realization that this McDoomer routine has been going on for a LONG time now, would we? :-D


Ok then - Why don't you give us your great insights and tell us all
about your long term track record on oil and its effects on the economy.

Mine is here for all to see. I called the peak in light sweet crude in 2005 and also stated in that year the dollar would begin a significant long term decline. In 2007 I said oil prices would reach at least $146 in 2008, and also, I predicted a very slow fall in the US economy in the first half of 2008 followed by a significant recession in the second half. I'm proud to say that in one recent year (2006) I've came very close to predicting exactly how oil high would go during the year, and I didn't do so bad in other years either.

Let's compare my predictions to yours. So what were they?
User avatar
DantesPeak
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6277
Joined: Sat 23 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: New Jersey
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests