Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Followup Guardian Article

A forum to either submit your own review of a book, video or audio interview, or to post reviews by others.
Post a reply

Re: Followup Guardian Article

Unread postby thuja » Sun 15 Nov 2009, 23:17:20

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Velociryx', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('thuja', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Velociryx', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('thuja', 'I') am still wondering how long it will be before the IEA (and EIA and CERA) revise their production graphs to show the real truth- that we are at peak...now.

How long do you think it will take Vel?


I'm on record as saying that I think we should wait ~20 years before we can say with any authority that we ARE at peak (so I think TOD called it WAY early). But...they have, and I'll play along cos it gives me LOTS of fodder.

But I'd not be surprised if any of the major tracking organizations wants a good number of years of data under their belt before calling it definitively, and based on past "peaks," this is probably wise.

-=Vel=-


Well you can say we can wait 20 years- but trust me no one else thinks that- not even the most cornucopian CERA. If they came out and all said we hit have hit peak and will be experiencing ongoing production depletion here on out...?

They would cause a radical shift a radical change in oil pricing via the
market, and would radically affect governmental poilicy throughout the world.

But still the questuion remains...when will they finally capitulate and agree that peak oil has just passed...or at least is imminent?


Well, from looking at the charts on world oil production, we had a single dip that lasted from ~'70 - ~'83, so five years.

How much egg do you suppose the folks who "called it" 3 months into the slope had? Or six? Or even two years?

So no...I think anybody with any sense is going to give it AT LEAST five years (the length of the last major downward slope of the "peak") before they call it, with confidence increasing the longer they wait.

Sure, you might get lucky by calling it early. Or...you might make the latest in a VERY long line of bogus predictions.

-=Vel=-



Mmmm- so how would you suggest energy analysts describe future production predictions...

maybe this way....?????

These folks are in the business of prognostication. They don't have the luxury of saying "We don't know." So therefore, when will they revise their projections (yet again) to be more in line with what we have all been saying for years...?
No Soup for You!!
User avatar
thuja
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2202
Joined: Sat 15 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Portland, Oregon
Top

Re: Followup Guardian Article

Unread postby Velociryx » Sun 15 Nov 2009, 23:18:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Velociryx', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')ame old sh@t. Everyone who does not agree with you is necessarily a "doomer". or a "peaker" Where do you get this nonsense!. Oh. I know. It's from Shorty. And yes I do have guns. Even a garden. So what?

But you have not responded to my point. The crux of your idiocy and that repeated endlessly by senseless is this in big bold letters: MULTIPLE PEAKS ARE A DIVERSION, function of differing definitions.

god. what numskull


Indeed, it truly is the same old, same old...and yes, based on our previous encounters, you ARE a doomer, and you DO believe in a fairly fast crash scenario, no fix possible at this late date, mass die-offs, etc.

And as I've said before, 99.9999% of the population will accept the mathematical notion of peak (making all of us "peakers" in that sense) provided you don't try to foist your disaster scenarios on them).

And no, multiple peaks are not a diversion. Tell it to the people who called PO back in the 70's (and were later proved wrong) - also known as "the faithful," or "your bretheren."

As to responding to your "point," I didn't respond because you've yet to make one. As soon as you do, however, I'll be more than happy to oblige.

Finally, as to where I get this nonsense...most of it from right here. PeakOil.com...my favorite source for nonsense of the doomerish variety, and so far, you've yet to disappoint. ;)

'nite!

-=Vel=-
The US peaked in the 70's. Are you really that ignorant of this subject? Why do you come here?

Wait! Where are you going. Come back here you cool-aide swilling cornutrollian. :twisted:



OH! I love the presto-chango routine! Do it again! See...pretty slick, talking about PO (which, as we all know, means GLOBAL PO), and then conflating it with US Peak...but that's not what "the bretheren" were wailing about back in the day....it was just like now. Global production was sliding downward (and did so for years)...armageddon was upon us (then, as now). The end of days! THE Peak!

Except of course, that it wasn't.

In any case, I found it amusing that you would, in one breath, accuse me of casting out a diversion, and then in the next gleefully diving into one of your own (gotta hand it to you...pretty slick, Ace!)

As to why I come here...I've already answered that question on numerous occassions....mostly, it's for the entertainment value. This place is classic. :)

-=Vel=-
(really off to bed now)
User avatar
Velociryx
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu 25 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Followup Guardian Article

Unread postby thuja » Mon 16 Nov 2009, 00:31:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Velociryx', '
')
Indeed, it truly is the same old, same old...and yes, based on our previous encounters, you ARE a doomer, and you DO believe in a fairly fast crash scenario, no fix possible at this late date, mass die-offs, etc. Based on my understanding of the parameters of those who self-define as "doomers" (and if I felt up to it, I am sure I could scour all your posts and find at least one where you describe yourself using that very word...now scurry off and edit them, quick@!), the term fits you pretty well--certainly well to the right of Thuja's moderate position.

And as I've said before, 99.9999% of the population will accept the mathematical notion of peak (making all of us "peakers" in that sense) provided you don't try to foist your disaster scenarios on them).

And no, multiple peaks are not a diversion. Tell it to the people who called PO back in the 70's (and were later proved wrong) - also known as "the faithful," or "your bretheren."

As to responding to your "point," I didn't respond because you've yet to make one. As soon as you do, however, I'll be more than happy to oblige.

Finally, as to where I get this nonsense...most of it from right here. PeakOil.com...my favorite source for nonsense of the doomerish variety, and so far, you've yet to disappoint. ;)

'nite!

-=Vel=-

and yes, while "numbskull" DOES describe you somewhat adequately, it just doesn't QUITE get the job done...I mean, it lacks a certain ambiance that encompasses the true depth of your particular mental condition.



Or perhaps this is how the IEA should issue reports:

"Gosh we really hoped we would some day achieve 120 million barrels/day. But now that prediction seems a tad reckless. So now we're realy really pinning our hopes on getting to 105 million barrels a day by 2030. But gosh, really we're unsure. So let's just say we might change our minds again. But no way no how the peak is happening now. That's crazy talk...unless of course it isn't. Which we suppose is possible. But really we're hedging our bets against it. I mean we hope its not. Gosh that would suck."
No Soup for You!!
User avatar
thuja
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2202
Joined: Sat 15 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Portland, Oregon
Top

Re: Followup Guardian Article

Unread postby Velociryx » Mon 16 Nov 2009, 06:58:52

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')mmm- so how would you suggest energy analysts describe future production predictions...

maybe this way....?????

These folks are in the business of prognostication. They don't have the luxury of saying "We don't know." So therefore, when will they revise their projections (yet again) to be more in line with what we have all been saying for years...?


I don't know and am not really in a position to say.

I am not a member of those organizations and have no idea how they work, or what their procedures/confidence thresholds are for revising their numbers.

I would be careful, however, when asking the question "when will they revise their numbers and outlook to be more like ours?"

Do you mean your LATEST predictions of peak? Cos the predictions on the PO side have been fast moving and ever changing.

Here are just a few of PO's "Greatest Hits" (or rather, misses)

In 1914 the US Bureau of Mines "predicted" that there were 5.76 Billion barrels of oil left...no more than a ten year supply.

in 1939 the Department of the Interior(division of oil resources) predicted the entire US supply would be gone in 13 years.

That same prediction was RE made in 1951.

Ken Deffeys (oft quoted here and one of the August Elders) has predicted PO in 2000, 2003, 2004, Nov 2005, Dec 2005, April 2006 and then, in a quirky POSTdiction, in '07 "predicted" PO in May 2005 (which was later supplanted by TOD's POSTdiction of last year).

And this, of course, is just a small sampling of the total number of PO Predictions made over the years.

So when you're asking the question, "when will their numbers reflect what we've been saying for years?"

Which numbers would you like them to use, exactly? ;)

As I have said before, I wish EVERYONE would stop with the guessing game. It seems to me that since we know it's a mathematical certainty at some point, those resources spent trying to guess when would be better spent on migration, don't you think? :)

And yes...I like your new proposed language. Do you think we could get Deffeys, Campbell, Simmons, et. al., to also agree to use it? *G*

-=Vel=-
User avatar
Velociryx
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu 25 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Followup Guardian Article

Unread postby mos6507 » Mon 16 Nov 2009, 14:36:45

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Velociryx', '
')As I have said before, I wish EVERYONE would stop with the guessing game. It seems to me that since we know it's a mathematical certainty at some point, those resources spent trying to guess when would be better spent on migration, don't you think? :)


That's the thing. Nobody's going to mitigate if they think peak oil is 10+ years off. They don't know how much of a lead time is required to mitigate. I'm not sure they even know how high the stakes are. They think mitigation may mean nothing more than a Chevy Volt in every garage.

Obviously this is the tapestry that leads peakers to push the envelope on their predictions. Sticking to a 2020 or 2030 peak date, as close as it is, does not provide a clarion call to action. Saying 2005 or 2008 does.

That being said, the one thing that should still be alarming is that the IEA has now published the same chart for two years in a row that has a downward slide on existing developed fields starting about now. Unless you think the IEA's predictions on that front are off wildly, and I see no reason to doubt them (considering that years prior they were seen as cornucopians by the peak oil faithful) I would be concerned about it, as it leaves us with quite a bit of uncertainty as to where all those extra saudi arabias are going to come from, or how going after increasingly expensive oil (like shale, tar sands) will perhaps prevent outrght shortages but result in perpetually high prices at the pump. It's that uncertainty that the whistleblowers are talking about.

So it's one thing to say that the IEA or CERA or other agencies want to cook the books to make it seem like there is no problem. Suspicion of corruption is par for the course with doomers. But it's another to have supposed insiders who are making open accusations at a time when the chart is already nothing but a mixed bag of hope and fear.

Since Fatih Birol is, when all is said and done, now considered "one of us" as far as raising the alarm of peak oil, the fact that insiders are saying they aren't raising the flag high enough to me provides no fodder for cornucopians whatsoever. Even if when the dust settles we wind up with a peak oil date of 2010 or even 2020 makes no difference. We're close enough that the natives are clearly getting restless. This is the "peak oil zone" that is being talked about.

Peakers should think about what a world of peak oil awareness, or peak oil anticipation, will be like. They may wind up wishing for the days of denialism. Open anticipation of peak can create a pre-peak stress response, which obviously some parties are concerned about. So at whatever point the cat's out of the bag, all sorts of things could indeed happen. The big one I'm concerned about is EXPORT LAND MODEL kicking in hard. Domestic oil suppliers start locking down their oil supply for domestic consumption regardless of the hit to their economies.

This would be the intersection point between guys like T Boone Pickens who seems to be more interested in the geopolitics of middle-eastern oil dependence vs. those who are more concerned with overall geological peak.

Despite everything, right now the US still enjoys unequaled access to oil markets. But nationalized oil companies deciding to put less oil on the market in order to meter it out for future generations could have the same impact as the oil embargo of the 1970s, only this time it would have no happy resolution.
mos6507
 
Top

Re: Followup Guardian Article

Unread postby thuja » Mon 16 Nov 2009, 17:11:07

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


As I have said before, I wish EVERYONE would stop with the guessing game. It seems to me that since we know it's a mathematical certainty at some point, those resources spent trying to guess when would be better spent on migration, don't you think? :)



-=Vel=-


Again- I don't know what planet you live on, but we don't have the luxury of just saying...um...who knows? Agencies need to make projections of oil production. This heavily influences policy, the market, the world economy and the oil business.

Look- don't you want to have a general sense of how much oil is left and how quickly fields will decline? Wouldn't you want to know how fast oil production will decline? 0.5%, 1%, 5%, 7%? (Well perhaps you don't but most everyone else in the world does.)

So I'm sorry- just saying- gosh we don't know- let's just not even bother trying to answer those questions...is a pretty lame argument.
No Soup for You!!
User avatar
thuja
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2202
Joined: Sat 15 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Portland, Oregon
Top

Re: Followup Guardian Article

Unread postby Velociryx » Mon 16 Nov 2009, 17:41:49

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hat's the thing. Nobody's going to mitigate if they think peak oil is 10+ years off. They don't know how much of a lead time is required to mitigate. I'm not sure they even know how high the stakes are. They think mitigation may mean nothing more than a Chevy Volt in every garage.


See...I think the difference here is all in how you frame out the argument.

Truth be told, you guys have a fair bit in common with the climate change guys (not saying that you're identical, but sure, there are similarities)...enough so that you could easily hitch a ride with them and identify yourself more fully with that camp.

In doing so, you open up a whole new vista and LOADS of new opportunities to frame out your arugment in a different way.

Instead of going all doom and gloom on everybody, you could then talk up the societal and environmental benefits of a changeover (and, if you STILL wanted to toss in a little doom and gloom, you easily could...that crowd certainly has their doom brigade!).

Point is...oil doesn't have to be on the verge of "running out tomorrow" to spur action...it's just a matter of slanting the argument a slightly different way. :)

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Again- I don't know what planet you live on, but we don't have the luxury of just saying...um...who knows? Agencies need to make projections of oil production. This heavily influences policy, the market, the world economy and the oil business.

Look- don't you want to have a general sense of how much oil is left and how quickly fields will decline? Wouldn't you want to know how fast oil production will decline? 0.5%, 1%, 5%, 7%? (Well perhaps you don't but most everyone else in the world does.)

So I'm sorry- just saying- gosh we don't know- let's just not even bother trying to answer those questions...is a pretty lame argument.


Quite happy here on planet earth, thanks. :)

And ON planet earth, let's take a look at the track record (of both sides) of the folks who are collecting the data.

Nobody takes the doomers seriously, and everybody says they select only the kinds of oil they feel are "appropriate" to be considered, so they can make the depleation graph look the way they want it to.

On the flip side, nobody takes CERA, etc seriously because they're classed as hopelessly optimistic, cooking the books, etc.

Further, no one can even agree on some base level definitions that everybody insists on using (ex: "unconventional oil" which means whatever the hell you want it to, depending on who you talk to).

Further still, no one can get what they feel is reliable information out of the nations PRODUCING said hydrocarbons.

So yes...while it would be LOVELY to KNOW the things you mentioned, NONE of the groups doing the tracking are doing a very admirable job of providing said information (primarily cos they don't have it, and can't get access to it), and in light of that fairly obvious fact, it's my rather straightforward opinion that the whole thing is a lark. A fool's errand.

Put simply, since we can't agree on simple terms, and can't get access to reliable data even if we COULD agree, then we might as well be pulling random numbers out of our collective assess and comparing them, and UNFORTUNATELY, that doesn't do anybody much good.

So yes, it's a waste of time and effort.

Make up a number and run with that if you're so worried about it that you're not sleeping well at night.

You can't do much worse than the prophets who came before you, and once you've got your fictional number in hand, let's get to work migrating, shall we? ;)

-=Vel=-
User avatar
Velociryx
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu 25 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Followup Guardian Article

Unread postby thuja » Mon 16 Nov 2009, 17:51:53

Again mate- not really a choice about analysis. It is essential for global policy, economic and business plans...

And though you discount the more "optimistic" projections, I assure you that most corporate and governing bodies do not discount them. They have wholeheartedly "bought" them.

This is why the radical revision of IEA projections is so shocking.

You are right that very few people acknowledge "doomer" projections. Although an increasing number of investors and analysts are integrating the idea of a more imminent peak and decline into their business models. IN other words, the "imminent peak" theory is gaining a lot of ground...

So again- sorry mate- you may discount everyone's opinion...but the world does not. And that is why it matters...greatly.
No Soup for You!!
User avatar
thuja
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2202
Joined: Sat 15 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Portland, Oregon
Top

Re: Followup Guardian Article

Unread postby Velociryx » Mon 16 Nov 2009, 18:00:38

Hey...I'm not saying it's not "necessary" (in quotes...at least on some level), but let's not pretend it's anything more than a wild ass guess, right?

I mean...let's call it what it is. CLEARLY, we (neither side of the argument), has the data to do any REAL analysis on the matter, which is why everybody who sticks their neck out with any sort of prediction or prognostication is always dead wrong.

That's not to say that the people making the guesses are stupid...just that since they don't have access to anywhere NEAR the data they'd need to make an informed decision, it is just that. A guess. (and that's all it is).

So...what I"M saying is that since it's a guess, and since we can't do better than a guess (can't get the info and even if we could, can't agree on basic terms and conditions to make decent use of it), what does it matter?

We all agree that PO is coming (and may have already happened)...so farting around with the numbers (which aren't "facts" at all, but again...guesses...and really, not even GOOD guesses), they don't hold a lot of value (sure, sure, you can talk about there being a certain "psychological value" to them, but now you're just playing the role of a spin doctor...facts don't matter in the least then, in which case, IEA, CERA may NEVER change their numbers...it's all about the psy-impact, see? ;) ).

So...at the end of the day...for us, and for the people who plan to actually DO something tangible, no.

The numbers don't matter, and they never have, and if people stop wasting time looking for numbers they can't get anyway, and focus their collective attentions and efforts on actually DOING something that could make a difference, we'd be a whole lot further along. :)

-=Vel=-

So again....pull a number out of your butt and run with it. You def. won't do any worse than the "experts" (on either side!)
Last edited by Velociryx on Mon 16 Nov 2009, 18:12:04, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Velociryx
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu 25 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Followup Guardian Article

Unread postby Velociryx » Mon 16 Nov 2009, 18:08:25

To clarify: Yes, in the sense that people feel comforted by numbers (even imaginary ones), a certain level of "analysis" is "necessary."

Note that I put those two key words in quotes, because since we can't get access to reliable data, we can't do much "analysis" of our largely fictitious data, and hence, our conclusions, while designed to give people the warm fuzzies, or illicit some other planned psychological response, are based on little more than hot air (and there's not much solid "analysis" you can do with that).

But yes...to the extent that people need numbers in front of them to break analysis paralysis and charge forward...I'll grant you, our highly fictionalized "analysis" is "necessary."

Beyond that...in terms of the VALUE the numbers provide...it's a joke, and we both know it.

The numbers don't mean anything, and probably WERE pulled out of some smart guy's butt.

So...change 'em.

Or...don't.

-=Vel=-
User avatar
Velociryx
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu 25 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Followup Guardian Article

Unread postby mos6507 » Mon 16 Nov 2009, 18:26:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('thuja', '
')an increasing number of investors and analysts are integrating the idea of a more imminent peak and decline into their business models.


So you attribute Warren Buffet's BNSF purchase as a peak oil gambit? Has the two dreaded words "peak oil" ever been spoken by the man? Even T Boone Pickens has barely mentioned peak oil. It's funny that those who seem to be hedging peak oil the most are still afraid to actually mention the term openly.
mos6507
 
Top

Re: Followup Guardian Article

Unread postby thuja » Mon 16 Nov 2009, 18:48:14

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('thuja', '
')an increasing number of investors and analysts are integrating the idea of a more imminent peak and decline into their business models.


So you attribute Warren Buffet's BNSF purchase as a peak oil gambit? Has the two dreaded words "peak oil" ever been spoken by the man? Even T Boone Pickens has barely mentioned peak oil. It's funny that those who seem to be hedging peak oil the most are still afraid to actually mention the term openly.


Yeah I'm pretty sure Pickens has mentioned the term Peak Oil...but that's bnot who I am really talking about.

There's an increasing number of investors who are examining and acknowledging production limitations into their economic models. In a large sense, the oil superspike happened due to a lot of these investors pumping the fear of shortage into the market. I really doubt we could have hit 147 without a sense of impending shortage- aka Peak Oil.

But in terms of names...probably the most famous and richest (besides Pickens) is Richard Rainwater. He bet big and has made plenty.
No Soup for You!!
User avatar
thuja
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2202
Joined: Sat 15 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Portland, Oregon
Top

Re: Followup Guardian Article

Unread postby thuja » Mon 16 Nov 2009, 19:00:30

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Velociryx', 'T')o clarify: Yes, in the sense that people feel comforted by numbers (even imaginary ones), a certain level of "analysis" is "necessary."

Note that I put those two key words in quotes, because since we can't get access to reliable data, we can't do much "analysis" of our largely fictitious data, and hence, our conclusions, while designed to give people the warm fuzzies, or illicit some other planned psychological response, are based on little more than hot air (and there's not much solid "analysis" you can do with that).

But yes...to the extent that people need numbers in front of them to break analysis paralysis and charge forward...I'll grant you, our highly fictionalized "analysis" is "necessary."

Beyond that...in terms of the VALUE the numbers provide...it's a joke, and we both know it.

The numbers don't mean anything, and probably WERE pulled out of some smart guy's butt.

So...change 'em.

Or...don't.

-=Vel=-


What are you talking about?
No Soup for You!!
User avatar
thuja
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2202
Joined: Sat 15 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Portland, Oregon
Top
Previous
Post a reply

Return to Book/Media Reviews

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests