Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Multiple Peaks (split from EIA confirms 2005 Peak)

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

Re: EIA's IPM confirms 2005 as peak production

Unread postby Quinny » Sun 23 Aug 2009, 03:03:10

SoS's last statement demonstrates to me why it's a total waste of time debating with him. He simply doesn't accept the link between energy (in particular cheap oil) and true wealth.

You should know by now the earth is obviously flat!

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('thuja', '
')That's easy- we have moderately priced gasoline similar to the price 4 years ago- because we are in a massive global recession. I already referenced the WSJ article that blames the global recession in large part due to astronomical oil prices. Astronomical oil prices were due to...world oil constraints.


Greenspan referenced both supply/demand and speculation as the issue, although some others certainly concentrated on speculation

http://www.bulatlat.com/main/2009/01/10 ... e-in-2008/

However, implicit in your statement is what I consider to be an obvious, and oft missed point, both back when peak oil happened in 2005 as well as today...the absolute volume of supply DOES NOT MATTER if those willing to PAY for their demand are less than that available for supply.

Recessions tend to be wonderful examples of supply/demand in action. It should be noted that this idea is in vogue now, rather than when peak happened, where demand destruction was dismissed as having much ability to sway prices. Some still list such obvious nonsense front and center, having not paid attention to reality since peak oil happened.

"The peak of the curve coincides with the point at which the endowment of oil has been 50 percent depleted. Once the peak is passed, oil production begins to go down while cost begins to go up."

Savinar, M, 2009, website quoted for use as example of incompetence only, not as reference to actual information.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('thuja', '
')No global effect from Peak Oil? You'd have to be blind not to notice whats happening.


What I've noticed I've already referenced...dropping prices for the commodity which most Americans see the price of, and use, nearly every day.

Unlike some, I certainly do not confuse mortgage issues or financial incompetence with any unified field theory of oil and its influence on the number of stars in the sky, or whatever the most interesting claims are of late.
Live, Love, Learn, Leave Legacy.....oh and have a Laugh while you're doing it!
User avatar
Quinny
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Thu 03 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: EIA's IPM confirms 2005 as peak production

Unread postby shortonsense » Sun 23 Aug 2009, 08:59:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('thuja', 'U')mmmkay SOS-

I think we're at an impasse. You're not even able to see ramifications from astronomical oil prices- so...I'm out.


And you can't even recognize that we've had those same astronomical REAL oil prices before, and they didn't cause the end of the world then either.
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: EIA's IPM confirms 2005 as peak production

Unread postby shortonsense » Sun 23 Aug 2009, 09:11:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Quinny', 'S')oS's last statement demonstrates to me why it's a total waste of time debating with him. He simply doesn't accept the link between energy (in particular cheap oil) and true wealth.

You should know by now the earth is obviously flat!


I believe MD has the energy/money nonsense covered so well that I once used his quote in my signature.

"A BTU is a BTU. It's real value does not change. Fiat currency however has no real value. One is a constant, and has real limits to its availability to do "useful work". The other has no limit and does no work."

You posted in that Excess of Optimism thread if I recall....maybe you think things are a waste of time because you didn't pay attention to such little gems when they were brought out back then?

And you can keep calling it cheap energy all you'd like, but it hasn't been such since before many posting here were born ( 1973 ), and MD's comment obviously covers the common confusion some here insist on between energy and money. Monte screwed this one up quite often as well, which is where this MD quote comes from.
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: EIA's IPM confirms 2005 as peak production

Unread postby mcgowanjm » Sun 23 Aug 2009, 09:17:34

We eat oil.

But we need the fiat $ of Empire to keep oil-12 mbpd- magically
coming into the US.

But the only way to keep the $ strong is to crush domestic
demand. Which has been happening since May 2005
with PO.

Tuesday, 18 August 2009
India: One Disaster Away From Disaster

The stalled monsoon rains this summer across large swathes of northern India are set to see rice production in the country fall from 99.15 MMT in 2008 to just 84 MMT this year, according to the USDA. [If you still have any faith in USDA estimates]

Kariff rice production only has a short growing season, being sown from mid-May through to the end of August, and harvested October through to January. Rice acreage is estimated down around 20% this year, which is seen having a knock-on effect in demand for winter sown wheat.

Think about this when you see Indian Basmati Rice in your store.
mcgowanjm
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2455
Joined: Fri 23 May 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: EIA's IPM confirms 2005 as peak production

Unread postby Pops » Sun 23 Aug 2009, 10:48:42

Well after 8 pages the fact remains the EIA numbers show more oil was extracted in 2005 than since.

In those 8 pages I think we have come to agree that some charts have lines that are jiggy jaggy.

And that the world doesn't end within 20 minutes every time the line on "our" chart stops going up - I don't know whether that is a jig or a jag but no matter.


The question on my mind is whether anyone has changed or even modified their opinion about future events based on this thread?

The other question is whether we should split off the Multiple Peaks discussion to a separate thread?
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac
Top

Re: EIA's IPM confirms 2005 as peak production

Unread postby Arthur75 » Sun 23 Aug 2009, 11:53:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '
')Absolutely. With peak oil 4 years in the past now, rather than 1, it becomes quite a bit more obvious that peak, while interesting, is having less of an effect than even its detractors have suspected.


Oh RLY ? The effect appears to me quite "interesting", though ...
User avatar
Arthur75
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun 29 Mar 2009, 05:10:51
Location: Paris, France
Top

Re: EIA's IPM confirms 2005 as peak production

Unread postby shortonsense » Sun 23 Aug 2009, 12:44:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'O')il reservoir mapping is a complex science and oil extraction numbers are often business and state secrets. It is no surprise that the precise date of maximum world production is difficult to determine. That is why so many models have been created to predict this important date.


Notice the topic subject. Its a done deal. Years ago. How many more years, in your expertise at the exotic science of "depletion", before anyone will notice? Gasoline prices being less now certainly does not help your case, your confusion of reservoir engineering basics and "depletion science" notwithstanding.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pstarr', '
')This is a supremely important topic as petroleum is the engine of our industrial and consumer society. We depend on the growth of easy-to-extract and convenient fossil fuels to sustain burgeoning populations and to maintain complex financial and social systems (that also seem to require constant growth themselves)


Crude oil was easy to extract when it was done with cable tool rigs. The invention of wire rope allowed low EROEI and hard to extract non conventional crude to become conventional. A full century ago. Ignore the progress of history at the risk of exposing how things which were once impossible, now are not, and are confused by the myopic with "conventional" because they haven't taken the time to learn the basic history of the industry. I would recommend "The Prize" as a starting point for the uninitiated to basics of oil history.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '
')That this is a serious problem has become apparent to many thinkers and statespeople more astute than us. For you Short to demean these attempts is disgusting and flies in the face of good science and citizenship.


At this point, timing does not matter, nor the study of timing in any other context than of a history lesson. The problem is so serious we've wandered right past the point of no return years ago, and still resource depletion issues are lumped in with 9/11 truthers and faked moon landing nutjobs, THATS how awe inspiring the moment was. No zombie hordes to mark the occasion, no skyrocketing prices until years later, and then they as rapidly crahed in the face of basic supply/demand, JUST LIKE IN 1986. The only new component in all of this is that peak oil happened this time, versus the peak in 1980 which was just one in a series.
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: EIA's IPM confirms 2005 as peak production

Unread postby shortonsense » Sun 23 Aug 2009, 12:45:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Arthur75', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '
')Absolutely. With peak oil 4 years in the past now, rather than 1, it becomes quite a bit more obvious that peak, while interesting, is having less of an effect than even its detractors have suspected.


Oh RLY ? The effect appears to me quite "interesting", though ...


I agree, I pay less for gasoline now and am quite happy about it. And I am seriously considering taking advantage of the consequences of idiot financial screwups to acquire a few rental properties, what with how far housing values have fallen. But thats not a peak oil issue of course, just another supply/demand consideration for those who are familiar with the concept of sell high, buy low.
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Multiple Peaks (split from EIA confirms 2005 Peak)

Unread postby shortonsense » Sun 23 Aug 2009, 15:48:41

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'S')orry, I put the link at the beginning of this thread instead of here

http://peakoil.com/post937931.html#p937931


Now we're off to the races!!

So....how many peaks are possible in a given field/area/state/national/globe?

Mexico has gone through 3 separate peaks since the late-70's, Venezuela, the UK, FSU, they have each pumped out 2, the US is a minority example of a large and reasonable sized aggregate of fields which has really had one major one, with a few interruptions in decline on the way down, but certainly no sustained reversal to achieve another peak.

This reversal and repeak concept and counts mentioned above only apply to oil, the US has repeaked in natural gas production, some 35+ years after our first natural gas peak.

So one of the questions which seems relevant would be, how much does the economic component of development completely negate the geologic element, and in so doing, wipe out the ability to use past production as a predictive trend for future estimates of production, rather than a complete economic model which encompasses what has been admittedly a critical variable left out of just supply calculations, which is demand and the resultant price.

The operative example would be a person standing in 1983, having just watched world global oil production decline approx 10% from its 1980 peak, and using the past to predict the future production rate off the prior trend. That person, in 1983, could proclaim with as straight a face as any Doomer today, that peak had happened, the end is near, <fill in UberDoomer scenario> is about to happen, etc etc.

Those of us who were applying for mortgages in the 1980-1983 timeframe might have bought into such a scenario as easliy as someone today watching their home equity disappear. The fear of the times is a common thread in both these cases, as demonstrated by everything from Jimmy and his malaise speech to examples too numerous to list from this website, or others, or various books hawked to the public at large on the evils of fossil fuels.

And yet we all know what happened next. More oil. So much more oil that it required the SUV and millions of soccer moms to soak it up at bargain basement prices in useless transportation.

And here we are, at another peak, and another period of economic turmoil ( lacking really only the blame on big oil this time, which is another question ) saying the same things which were said during the 70-80's, and even earlier if we want to reference Harold Ickes.
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Multiple Peaks (split from EIA confirms 2005 Peak)

Unread postby Arthur75 » Sun 23 Aug 2009, 16:14:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '
')So one of the questions which seems relevant would be, how much does the economic component of development completely negate the geologic element, and in so doing, wipe out the ability to use past production as a predictive trend for future estimates of production, rather than a complete economic model which encompasses what has been admittedly a critical variable left out of just supply calculations, which is demand and the resultant price.




Wow, do you really think the UK is expecting a third peak coming ? Do you think in the 70s people were even thinking of launching operations such as the tar sands ? Peak oil is really a banality, even if unfortunate ...
User avatar
Arthur75
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun 29 Mar 2009, 05:10:51
Location: Paris, France
Top

Re: Multiple Peaks (split from EIA confirms 2005 Peak)

Unread postby AirlinePilot » Sun 23 Aug 2009, 16:52:35

In a very simplistic fashion the discovery numbers in the past supported some of what SOS is saying. At present the discoveries even when backdated cannot and do not support growing world production. He will refuse to acknowledge that there are no large pools of oil left to find. It's fairly common knowledge to those inside the industry that finding another Ghawar..or SIX...is not likely or even probable.

SOS lays his entire premise, this multiple Peaks crap, on this wild and unsupportable assumption. And that ladies and Gentleman, is that.

Thats what it all boils down to. Do you believe with blind faith that we can somehow magically find another SIX Ghawars in the coming few years and exploit them easily and cheaply in order to spur further growth in world production.

After much reading, study, and thought, I've come to the personal conclusion that assuming this can happen is more lunacy than science and puts you further into tinfoil land than any belief that we are at or near PO.

Economics included, at some point, the decline rates will trump even the global decrease in demand from any larger/longer downturn. Mark my words. It will happen well within all of our lifetimes.

Good luck with your topics SOS. I look forward to you actually finding the facts (and the OIL!) to support your premise.
User avatar
AirlinePilot
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4378
Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South of Atlanta
Top

Re: Multiple Peaks (split from EIA confirms 2005 Peak)

Unread postby shortonsense » Sun 23 Aug 2009, 17:22:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Arthur75', '
')Wow, do you really think the UK is expecting a third peak coming ?


I certainly didn't say that. But based on how poorly the single peak concept works, it is certainly a point worth considering for ANY large area.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Arthur75', '
')Do you think in the 70s people were even thinking of launching operations such as the tar sands ? Peak oil is really a banality, even if unfortunate ...


Peak oil is apparently history according to the EIA....it happened, its over, life goes on, and maybe we worry about important stuff like keeping a job, paying the mortgage, getting the kids into a decent school, etc etc. Which is quite a reasonable focus, it seems to me.

As far as the tar sands, do you think the cable tool drillers from the late-1800's, who would have considered deep holes of, say, 4000' in depth impossible and "unconventional", could ever have expected so much hard to get, expensive and "unconventional" oil to be the next level argument for the NEXT level of expensive, hard to get, and impossible "unconventional" oil?
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Multiple Peaks (split from EIA confirms 2005 Peak)

Unread postby shortonsense » Sun 23 Aug 2009, 17:34:06

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AirlinePilot', 'I')n a very simplistic fashion the discovery numbers in the past supported some of what SOS is saying. At present the discoveries even when backdated cannot and do not support growing world production.


I assume you are refering to censored and incomplete discovery charts which usually exclude the types of oil they don't like to talk about?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AirlinePilot', '
') He will refuse to acknowledge that there are no large pools of oil left to find. It's fairly common knowledge to those inside the industry that finding another Ghawar..or SIX...is not likely or even probable.


Apparently, FINDING new stuff isn't near as important as peak oilers thought it was, considering we're 4 years past peak nowadays. And the USGS certainly isn't talking about the few odd hundreds of barrels for the Arctic, now is it?

90 billion barrels floating around, just waiting for some ice to melt? Just look at the gas though, another 1600 TCF of conventional natural gas, which converts to what, another 200 billion barrels of liquids if we want to use it that way instead?

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3049/fs2008-3049.pdf

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AirlinePilot', '
') SOS lays his entire premise, this multiple Peaks crap, on this wild and unsupportable assumption. And that ladies and Gentleman, is that.


The problem with dismissing this "crap" of course, is that it has happened before, we have proclaimed the end before, and for all your complaints, you can't find a difference between THIS peak oil and those OTHER ones which gives insight into THIS one being THE one. Except apparently now we have the EIA declaring it, which is certainly different from what they claimed in 2005.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AirlinePilot', '
') Economics included, at some point, the decline rates will trump even the global decrease in demand from any larger/longer downturn. Mark my words. It will happen well within all of our lifetimes.

Good luck with your topics SOS. I look forward to you actually finding the facts (and the OIL!) to support your premise.


Within our lifetimes? What, you DENY peak oil as historical fact, the assertion of which started this thread in the first place? How very cornocopian of you, which makes me the Doomer I guess, actually looking at the production graph and agreeing with the EIA.
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Multiple Peaks (split from EIA confirms 2005 Peak)

Unread postby AirlinePilot » Mon 24 Aug 2009, 02:26:34

I have never made a claim of peak. I acknowledge and cite many studies and data contained in those studies, as having far more credibility than your trollish presence here at PO. I have never said anything definitive other than we may be at or near peak. It may actually have already happened but it is too soon to know with absolute certainty. Those data points and studies do highly suggest that peak is very near. You are completely mischaracterizing my posts in these and other threads. It appears intentional and malicious. As a debating tactic it fails.You have not refuted anything with your outlandish view that there have been many peaks. There most decidedly have not. When we refer to the "peak" we obviously are talking about THE Peak, not the bumps and trends along the upslope or present plateau we are currently on. You cant even seem to distinguish this during any of the debates or arguments you participate in.
User avatar
AirlinePilot
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4378
Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South of Atlanta
Top

Re: Multiple Peaks (split from EIA confirms 2005 Peak)

Unread postby shortonsense » Sun 30 Aug 2009, 18:52:25

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AirlinePilot', 'I') have never made a claim of peak.


But others have. Note the title of the thread itself.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AirlinePilot', '
') I acknowledge and cite many studies and data contained in those studies, as having far more credibility than your trollish presence here at PO.


Noticing multiple, past, and frequent other peaks does not make me a troll any more than noticing that most airplanes have wings would make you one. But I am quite flexible, so if you wish to throw your weight behind the 2008 peak rather than the 2005 peak, I am quite willing to reconsider the EIA's conclusions.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AirlinePilot', '
')You have not refuted anything with your outlandish view that there have been many peaks.


A) It isn't outlandish when its historical information, your characterization is incorrect.
B) You haven't disputed any of the peaks, which is good considering their factual nature.
C) The concept of multiple, and in some cases widely spaced peaks disputes the ENTIRE concept of the meaningfulness of any single one.

If peaks can happen as far apart as multiple peaks in natural gas production in the United States has, we wiil have to wait until approximately 2040 before we can decide with any certainty that 2005 was, in fact, THE global oil production peak, and not just another one along the way.
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: EIA's IPM confirms 2005 as peak production

Unread postby AdamB » Mon 19 Feb 2018, 18:39:45

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mcgowanjm', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')I truly believe that, as mentioned in this thread, peak oil is now 4 years old, and as best I can tell not a single tractor in America has stopped running for lack of fuel.


May 2005, Ken Deffeyes, Jeff Brown place PO. Confirmed now with backdated data.


Boy did YOU never learn anything about how peak oil works.

"Confirmed" being the funniest part of that sentence.
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)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 11018
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26
Top

Re: EIA's IPM confirms 2005 as peak production

Unread postby AdamB » Mon 19 Feb 2018, 18:47:14

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AirlinePilot', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '
')
I truly believe that, as mentioned in this thread, peak oil is now 4 years old, and as best I can tell not a single tractor in America has stopped running for lack of fuel. Not a single plastics plant has shut down for lack of hydrocarbon feedstock. Not a single person has starved because Wal-Mart has not stocked their grocery shelves. Not a single NASCAR race has been postponed for lack of fuel, or inability to pay for it. Not a single airliner has fallen from the sky, no transpacific transport is adrift on the ocean for lack of fuel to get to port, no suburban zombies have taken over any American cities, there are no rolling permanent blackouts in North America, 90% of the worlds population hasn't died ( yes, I have the reference for Matts claim on this one right in front of me ) and on and on.I


I'd submit also that there are signs here of cracks around the edges but since they don't immediately affect your worldview, you're attempting (and failing i might add) to claim that it's BAU and the happy motoring American suburban dream will continue.


I'd submit that your "cracks" were as delusional as Ehrlichs, or any other zealot that can only see DOOM, regardless of what is happening in the world.

As we now know, the American suburban dream did continue, BAU is cranking along about the same as it has since birth, and Happy McPeaksters are just rinsing and recycling the same bad ideas that led them to making a claim similar to yours. Except now, the rinsing and recycling is obvious, zealots are furiously playing kick the can using whatever blogging based asshattery they can find, and the only people who appeared to see through this in real time were banned for being the only ones refusing to fall for herd think.
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)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 11018
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26
Top

Re: Multiple Peaks (split from EIA confirms 2005 Peak)

Unread postby Plantagenet » Mon 19 Feb 2018, 21:21:49

Are you actually trying to have a conversation with someone who doesn't post here anymore about a post they made 9 years ago.......?

How is that working out for you? :lol:

Cheers!
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Re: EIA's IPM confirms 2005 as peak production

Unread postby AdamB » Mon 19 Feb 2018, 21:28:56

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mcgowanjm', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')The critical factor right now has been lack of credit (money). We'll get to the lack of energy soon enough.


What people are (slowly) finding out is that credit is not money.

And that afterwards they'll discover that money is energy.
And then that no debt can be created w/o energy growth.
Which we passed at May 2005.


Except...we didn't..and the zealot team in the peak oil fantasy league then tucked tail and ran. Mostly.
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)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 11018
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26
Top

Re: Multiple Peaks (split from EIA confirms 2005 Peak)

Unread postby AdamB » Mon 19 Feb 2018, 21:32:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'A')re you actually trying to have a conversation with someone who doesn't post here anymore about a post they made 9 years ago.......?

How is that working out for you? :lol:

Cheers!


You never know how many of the Happy McPeaksters are left until..you know...you ask a question and see if they are too embarrassed by their oil ignorance to show up and answer. Or not.

Besides, the title to this thread is important, you see, the US has since demonstrated the sine wave function of oil production, and I am working my way through this thread to see if someone knew it could happen before it did. Because then not only would I not be originator of the idea, but someone might have actually figured this out, right here on this forum, before it actually happened. And you can't find any peak oiler here who managed that, so it is quite the anomaly.
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)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 11018
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



cron