by yesplease » Wed 22 Oct 2008, 18:13:52
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Barbara', 'N')o.
It's just indicative that it was an international meeting and we aren't expected to speak english like the Queen Elizabeth.
Shoot, y'all don't need the Queen's English, and as far as I know, didn't use it. Ya just need something that's been proof-read.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
by kevincarter » Thu 23 Oct 2008, 06:43:27
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'I') liked the second slide.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')ow I only need food on the supermarkets
That said, it unfortunately seems indicative of the level of rigor used in most analysis...
That was written by a Spanish guy who does comics, not by one of the speakers.
Their analysis seemed good to me, some of the guys talking had been working in the oil sector for a long time. I don't know, I welcome you to go to their next ASPO meeting and try to debunk the rigor of their analysis on their face, and see what they say.
ANother thing I foud really interesting was about EROEI. The speaker said that efficiency had been steady in most countrties, it does not increase or decrease much according to his data. But EROEI has been dropping like a rock, that means more energy to do the same.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd we expect participants at a meeting of the Association for the Study Advocacy of Peak Oil to tell us there's plenty of oil left, that technological advances will continue apace and that we can continue to drive our SUV's in the suburbs for the foreseeable future?
Well, What I expect is to more or less find reality trough more or less coherent facts. One one side I see ASPO, on the other I see abmiotic oil advocates and 2050 predictions based on smelly data. I wish I could buy the "2050, we-will-conquer-the-stars, hidrogen cars" theory but I just can't swalow it because I find it uncoherent. So if anyone has any good info that could make me underestand that PO is false and that I'm jus t freaking out I'd be glad to read it. But I guess there isn't, because its all about the data, and as I said the "2050" data smells baaaad.
by yesplease » Thu 23 Oct 2008, 17:01:23
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kevincarter', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'I') liked the second slide.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')ow I only need food on the supermarkets
That said, it unfortunately seems indicative of the level of rigor used in most analysis...
That was written by a Spanish guy who does comics, not by one of the speakers.
I'm disappointed. He didn't include t3h zombi3z.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kevincarter', 'T')heir analysis seemed good to me, some of the guys talking had been working in the oil sector for a long time. I don't know, I welcome you to go to their next ASPO meeting and try to debunk the rigor of their analysis on their face, and see what they say.
Debunk the rigor? What does that even mean? Something is either rigorous, or not, and someone can debunk a statement I suppose, but they can't debunk the rigor, outside of using the word in a way that isn't standard. $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
by copious.abundance » Thu 23 Oct 2008, 17:51:26
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kevincarter', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd we expect participants at a meeting of the Association for the Study Advocacy of Peak Oil to tell us there's plenty of oil left, that technological advances will continue apace and that we can continue to drive our SUV's in the suburbs for the foreseeable future?
Well, What I expect is to more or less find reality trough more or less coherent facts. One one side I see ASPO, on the other I see abmiotic oil advocates and 2050 predictions based on smelly data. I wish I could buy the "2050, we-will-conquer-the-stars, hidrogen cars" theory but I just can't swalow it because I find it uncoherent. So if anyone has any good info that could make me underestand that PO is false and that I'm jus t freaking out I'd be glad to read it. But I guess there isn't, because its all about the data, and as I said the "2050" data smells baaaad.
There
is no "data" on 2050, because 2050 is still 42 years away. "Data" are numbers on things which are already fact. Events 42 years from now are not facts yet. The only things which exist for the year 2050 are projections and wild-ass guesses. And many - if not most - projections of things 42 years from now are little more than wild-ass guesses anyway.
42 years from now, a lot could happen. They could perfect nuclear fusion and develop super-lightweight cars made of carbon nanotubes with batteries which will run for 300 miles on one charge . . . in which case few people will give a rat's ass about oil, and it will be $10/barrel. Or they could discover 200 billion recoverable barrels off the east coast of the US, 300 billion barrels off the coast of Brazil, 500 billion barrels in the waters around Indonesia, a trillion barrels in Iraq, another 50 billion barrels in unexplored basins in the deserts of Australia, and who knows what else, where else. Or both could happen. Or a massive disease could wipe out 1/3 of humanity, in which case worries about running out of oil will seem like a joke.
Your problem is that you buy into the propaganda and "projections" from peak oil advocates lock, stock and barrel and accept it as fact, when it is about as far removed from fact as you could possibly get.
Stuff for doomers to contemplate:
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1190117.html#p1190117
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1193930.html#p1193930
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1206767.html#p1206767
by Starvid » Sat 25 Oct 2008, 17:28:24
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kevincarter', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd we expect participants at a meeting of the Association for the Study Advocacy of Peak Oil to tell us there's plenty of oil left, that technological advances will continue apace and that we can continue to drive our SUV's in the suburbs for the foreseeable future?
Well, What I expect is to more or less find reality trough more or less coherent facts. One one side I see ASPO, on the other I see abmiotic oil advocates and 2050 predictions based on smelly data. I wish I could buy the "2050, we-will-conquer-the-stars, hidrogen cars" theory but I just can't swalow it because I find it uncoherent. So if anyone has any good info that could make me underestand that PO is false and that I'm jus t freaking out I'd be glad to read it. But I guess there isn't, because its all about the data, and as I said the "2050" data smells baaaad.
There
is no "data" on 2050, because 2050 is still 42 years away. "Data" are numbers on things which are already fact. Events 42 years from now are not facts yet. The only things which exist for the year 2050 are projections and wild-ass guesses. And many - if not most - projections of things 42 years from now are little more than wild-ass guesses anyway.
42 years from now, a lot could happen. They could perfect nuclear fusion and develop super-lightweight cars made of carbon nanotubes with batteries which will run for 300 miles on one charge . . . in which case few people will give a rat's ass about oil, and it will be $10/barrel. Or they could discover 200 billion recoverable barrels off the east coast of the US, 300 billion barrels off the coast of Brazil, 500 billion barrels in the waters around Indonesia, a trillion barrels in Iraq, another 50 billion barrels in unexplored basins in the deserts of Australia, and who knows what else, where else. Or both could happen. Or a massive disease could wipe out 1/3 of humanity, in which case worries about running out of oil will seem like a joke.
Your problem is that you buy into the propaganda and "projections" from peak oil advocates lock, stock and barrel and accept it as fact, when it is about as far removed from fact as you could possibly get.
While no one can know anything about what the world will look like in 2050, there are some things we can make educated guesses at.
For example, we know about how much undiscovered oil we will find in current oil provinces. We also know that global oil discovery peaked around 1965 (discoveries backdated) and nothing will change that. We know that the price of oil has no, or only a tenous connection to how much oil is discovered (from the 1973-1986 experience in the lower 48, among others). We know the few oil provinces which are not sufficiently explored that might give us new finds (offshore Brazil and West Africa, Iraq, the Arctic, and some more).
While everything is very uncertain, we do have a rough picture.
By the way, I spoke to a retired Statoil exec a few days ago. His opinion about peak oil was that it will happen pretty soon or that we might already be on the plateau, but that ASPO was underestimating how technology and high prices might reduce decline rates and increase the supply of alternative fossil fuels.
by Starvid » Sat 25 Oct 2008, 17:38:34
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kevincarter', 'O')h, another interesting thing they said at the meeting was that during the great depression they discovered the biggest oil field in the US in Texas (1930) and that the country had all this oil to work its way out of the depression, so now we may be having a great depression again but there is no big mama oild field to fix the problem.
The Depression was not ended by East Texas. It was ended by the New Deal and to a much greater extent by World War Two.
Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
-
Starvid
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 3021
- Joined: Sun 20 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: Uppsala, Sweden
-
by TheDude » Sat 25 Oct 2008, 20:05:53
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', 'Y')our problem is that you buy into the propaganda and "projections" from peak oil advocates lock, stock and barrel and accept it as fact, when it is about as far removed from fact as you could possibly get.
Oh, definitely true. I don't believe in the OPEC reserves revisions, 6 nations announcing massive increases in lockstep after declaring that their production quota would be set by the size of same reserves, all of this taking place after the price had hit bottom, with these nations announcing yearly increases in reserves that inexplicably match their yearly production, and with the parliament of the first nation to make said revisions recently announcing that the whole thing indeed was a fabrication. "Fact" enough for you? If you take all that at face value you're blessed with a full bladder of Kool Aid. You're also dismissing statements from senior employees of Saudi Aramco and the INOC, who took serious risks making them.
Oil Reserves -
5 OPEC countries
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
-
TheDude
- Expert
-
- Posts: 4896
- Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
-
by copious.abundance » Sat 25 Oct 2008, 20:44:08
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kevincarter', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', '
')Your problem is that you buy into the propaganda and "projections" from peak oil advocates lock, stock and barrel and accept it as fact, when it is about as far removed from fact as you could possibly get.
Can you then show me the weak points of this propaganda and the true facts, please?
All I need to do is give you links to the countless threads posted in this forum from earlier this year where your fellow peakers incessantly predicted $200, $300 and $500 oil with no end of the rise in sight, world oil production falling off cliffs, that the oil price rise had nothing to do with speculation, that Saudi production would never be able to rise again, that Americans would never be able to reduce their oil consumption by any substantial amount, and so on, and so forth. All this belief was fed by other peaker/doomers to the point it was accepted as fact. Now that
the price of oil has crashed to levels
below that which 75% of the forum here thought was impossible, that
US oil consumption is down by 1.7 million bpd in the latest month, and
world crude oil production has gone up, all those predictions of the peaker/doomers from earlier in the year are looking downright funny now. At least
a few of you are starting to admit it might be time to eat crow.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kevincarter', 'O')h, another interesting thing they said at the meeting was that during the great depression they discovered the biggest oil field in the US in Texas (1930) and that the country had all this oil to work its way out of the depression, so now we may be having a great depression again but there is no big mama oild field to fix the problem.
This is a great example of you falling for peak oil propaganda without question. That a mere
7 billion barrel oil field was somehow magically responsible for saving the US from the Depression (in spite of the fact that the Depression continued for another 11 years after the discovery!), and that another big discovery somewhere could magically save us from the current (possible) Depression, tells me that your thinking has become so oil shortage-centric that it has gone beyond an academic interest and entered the realm of a religion. When one starts attributing just about everything to Cause X - be it economic cycles, political cycles, social phenomena, and whatever else - then Cause X has ceased to be an academic pursuit and crossed over the line into a religion. Why do I say this? Because the world is far too complicated to be attributable to any single Cause X, that's why.
by Daniel_Plainview » Sat 25 Oct 2008, 20:47:58
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DoomWarrior', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kevincarter', '[')b]DOOM
My second-favorite 4-letter word!
So what's the no.1 word, "beer"?
This is a family-oriented forum, so I can't say what my favorite 4-letter word is.
But "beer" is definitely in my top 10!
by kevincarter » Fri 31 Oct 2008, 12:26:18
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kevincarter', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', '
')Your problem is that you buy into the propaganda and "projections" from peak oil advocates lock, stock and barrel and accept it as fact, when it is about as far removed from fact as you could possibly get.
Can you then show me the weak points of this propaganda and the true facts, please?
All I need to do is give you links to the countless threads posted in this forum from earlier this year where your fellow peakers incessantly predicted $200, $300 and $500 oil with no end of the rise in sight, world oil production falling off cliffs, that the oil price rise had nothing to do with speculation, that Saudi production would never be able to rise again, that Americans would never be able to reduce their oil consumption by any substantial amount, and so on, and so forth. All this belief was fed by other peaker/doomers to the point it was accepted as fact. Now that
the price of oil has crashed to levels
below that which 75% of the forum here thought was impossible, that
US oil consumption is down by 1.7 million bpd in the latest month, and
world crude oil production has gone up, all those predictions of the peaker/doomers from earlier in the year are looking downright funny now. At least
a few of you are starting to admit it might be time to eat crow.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kevincarter', 'O')h, another interesting thing they said at the meeting was that during the great depression they discovered the biggest oil field in the US in Texas (1930) and that the country had all this oil to work its way out of the depression, so now we may be having a great depression again but there is no big mama oild field to fix the problem.
This is a great example of you falling for peak oil propaganda without question. That a mere
7 billion barrel oil field was somehow magically responsible for saving the US from the Depression (in spite of the fact that the Depression continued for another 11 years after the discovery!), and that another big discovery somewhere could magically save us from the current (possible) Depression, tells me that your thinking has become so oil shortage-centric that it has gone beyond an academic interest and entered the realm of a religion. When one starts attributing just about everything to Cause X - be it economic cycles, political cycles, social phenomena, and whatever else - then Cause X has ceased to be an academic pursuit and crossed over the line into a religion. Why do I say this? Because the world is far too complicated to be attributable to any single Cause X, that's why.
