by DantesPeak » Sun 30 Aug 2009, 21:18:42
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DantesPeak', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '
')Some of has have been, ever since peak oil happened in 2005, and gasoline prices are cheaper now than they were then as well.
Well, no, you are wrong.
The average 2009 year price to date is higher than the average 2005 year price to date, and the price right now is higher than where is was 4 years ago (at this time of year).
( at this time of year ) being the operative phrase perhaps? Labor day is coming upon us fast, seemed like a quite reasonable reference point to me, and its within a week of now, so sure, at this time of year, real and nominal prices are both higher in the peak oil year of 2005, in the vicinity of labor day weekend, as we are now.
Perhaps you were confused by the graph of only nominal prices you provided? The EIA really needs to include real price graphs, its the only way we can tell that the oil spikes and shocks of the mighty peak oil in 1979/80 was nearly as awe inspiring as the 2008 price spikes ( 3 years post peak according to the same organization you have referenced ).
What is the proper CPI adjustment for gasoline prices? “Adjusting” the consumer price index for changes in energy is an exercise in circular logic. First of all, the effects of the rise in the price of energy don’t show up in the CPI right away. I’ve said before it may take up to two years for retail fuel prices to pass through all goods and show up in the CPI.
Essentially you are requesting that the price of gasoline be adjusted for earlier changes in the price of gasoline. Anyway your original statement was not about real prices.
Also price is not solely dependent on supply – as many mass media articles seem imply, but actual and potential demand.
Due to this kind of mis-analysis, it’s not surprising people like Lynch are taken seriously by some.
It's already over, now it's just a matter of adjusting.
by shortonsense » Sun 30 Aug 2009, 21:52:01
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DantesPeak', '
')What is the proper CPI adjustment for gasoline prices?
An excellent question.
Certainly $1.40/gal this past fall which I was paying for it doesn't have the same economic effect as when I paid $140/gal for it earlier in the decade.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DantesPeak', '
')Also price is not solely dependent on supply – as many mass media articles seem imply, but actual and potential demand.
Due to this kind of mis-analysis, it’s not surprising people like Lynch are taken seriously by some.
I think Lynch is taken seriously because peak oiler claims, and the event itself, certainly don't appear to have worked out the way it had been hoped. Whether his explanation covers the WHY of it is quite a difference question, but I consider it quite telling that people want to refute not what Lynch actually said, but random interpretations of how they feel their beliefs are being challenged.
by DantesPeak » Sun 30 Aug 2009, 22:06:07
Lynch has made many predictions here. His forecasts on oil supply and prices turned out to be very wrong.
He is also not above bashing others.
Check it out his record for yourself.
http://peakoil.com/peak-oil-discussion/ ... ilit=LynchMon Jul 25, 2005 8:07 am
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('spike', 'I') tried to reply to this before, but don't think it went through. The software on this system is new to me.
1) High oil prices right now are due to investors like mutual funds piling in. The supply/demand balance is getting increasingly bearish. Non-OPEC supply is estimated to rise 1.5 to 2.5 mb/d the second half of this year.
2) I'm almost finished an article on Simmons' book. His analytical skills are lacking.
3) Hirsh et. al. assume peak oil, and appear to be exaggerating its impact. (I haven't read the full report carefully yet.)
4) I'm not sure who you mean when you say "SA", but presume it was some Saudi official. To my knowledge, they don't have an official stance on that. Also, for nearly 25 years, the IEA and others have projected a need for a steep increase in OPEC supplies (long-term), and it hasn't happened, so the Saudis are somewhat skeptical (as am I).
5) US gas is a different situation from world oil. It is a mature proviince. But the jury is still out on production direction; new plays could contribute enough to see production increase over the next 5 years.
Mike Lynch
It's already over, now it's just a matter of adjusting.
-
DantesPeak
- Expert
-
- Posts: 6277
- Joined: Sat 23 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: New Jersey
-
by Carlhole » Sun 30 Aug 2009, 22:24:05
FatherOfTwo's Last Post - 11/08$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FatherOfTwo', 'I')'m going to throw this thread off on a bit of a tangent, the only reason I'm doing so is because I received a PM about it. I was originally going to reply directly via the PM, but perhaps this will be read and appreciated by others. Apologies if this tangent annoys you.
Honestly I don't follow peakoil.com that much anymore (although I do pop in every now and then to the economic forum to read MrBill's very, very insightful posts) Here's why I don't follow it too much anymore, and why I would suggest doing a lot more reading before taking the "doomer's prep stage":
I started reading and researching peak oil in 2004 (as you can see by my join date and number of posts) It rattled me extensively as I was seriously uneducated about the topic at the time. I became a frequent visitor to this site and my appetite for energy related news and information became ravenous. I also became pretty depressed about the whole thing.
Over the years I have done a
tremendous amount more reading and I've also attended the UofC's IEEE speaker sessions too. (I highly recommend those) With much more info under my belt and 4 years of reflection, I have a very different point of view now - and that is that we are headed for a gut wrenching adjustment, but doom due to peak oil is not on the horizon. This thread is not the place for me to extrapolate on my position.
In general I think blukatzen has good recommendations: living locally and sustainably is good regardless of what happens with Peak Oil. But as someone who has 4 years of this topic under his belt, I'd caution you to do more research before "prepping". peakoil.com is slanted hard towards the doomer side of things, and as with any topic it's best to get all the facts and a full sampling of viewpoints before betting the ranch on any one outcome.
I'm willing to discuss things further via PM but this thread isn't the place to continue any discussions on this matter.
Cheers and best of luck,
FoT
Couldn't agree with him more.
Last edited by Carlhole on Sun 30 Aug 2009, 22:50:54, edited 2 times in total.
-
Carlhole
-
by TheDude » Sun 30 Aug 2009, 23:41:54
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FatherofTwo', 'W')ith much more info under my belt and 4 years of reflection, I have a very different point of view now - and that is that we are headed for a gut wrenching adjustment, but doom due to peak oil is not on the horizon.
Couldn't agree with him more.
Oh, I could beg to differ. What in the past seemed like simple exercises in engineering and political/public motivation now seem insurmountable to modern society. Given your signature, you'll perhaps relate to an obvious example I use often: the apparent inability to build a new complex of skyscrapers in the rubble of the World Trade Center.
Not entirely apt a comparison to mitigating peak oil, but what's the holdup? This is some of the world's most prime real estate, and an icon recognized the world over. Putting something new in there would be enormously profitable in the end for a whole variety of reasons, not just financial, yet it just isn't getting done.
Anyway, isn't warning people that we may be headed into a "gut-wrenching transition" worthwhile? This misapprehension that anyone who is cautionary on this subject by default believes we'll all end out our lives eating dog corpses is really irritating.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hich is why I was so disheartened to read the TOD response, I figured that surely they would do better than just a general statement which didn't address any of the actual points and just revolved around "you can't predict the future any better than we can so you suck too!", paraphrasing liberally.
Those actual points being what? His Op Ed painted peak oilers as deluded cranks who don't understand how the industry works; that graph shows that he's no cast in stone seer either, what more finesse do you want? I did my best to leave the personal attacks out of it, or dive into conspiracies regarding his motivations, too.
I also referenced Freddy Hutter, who emailed me; Freddy does good work on keeping track of forecasters of all stripes, more analysis of their work benefits all. I don't care at all that Freddy is a cornucopian himself, contrary to my own position. I'm interested in data, evidence, presentations.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')peaking for myself, I only want to find out how the world will dig itself out of the depletion hole.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ell, right now production is soaring, so that seems to be the answer.
Mike Lynch
by DantesPeak » Mon 31 Aug 2009, 00:03:26
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'm')itigating peak oil, but what's the holdup?
Yes -what's the holdup? Also - almost all huge and expensive new oil projects worldwide seem to be bogged down and not making much progress. You would think that in the US with the 'free market' at work, the oil companies can and would develop new oil finds as fast as possible - and faster than elsewhere. Curiously this is not the case, as I posted today (in the former 'Jack' discovery thread), that it may take 10 years to get oil out of 'Jack' :
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t appears this is now the thread to discuss the famous "Jack #2" discovery of 2006.
Well what happened to 'Jack' since then? Apparently not much.I have conducted a very exhaustive search on the activities (or lack thereof) concerning 'Jack'. The expected test drilling that was supposed to get under way in 2008 may get underway in 2009. But maybe not. Meanwhile 'Jack' is just a plugged up hole way under the Gulf of Mexico.
The article below notes that a drilling ship for the GOM has finally been commissioned by Chevron. Based upon previously available information, it is my understanding that the 'Tahiti' area will be drilled first, and then 'Jack'.
Chevron has also finally awarded a contract to Noble recently to design plans and infrastructure for the expected output in that area.
There are expectations that output could be seen as early as 2015, but others say 2016.
http://peakoil.com/current-events/the-c ... 7-495.html
It's already over, now it's just a matter of adjusting.
by shortonsense » Mon 31 Aug 2009, 14:28:22
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hich is why I was so disheartened to read the TOD response, I figured that surely they would do better than just a general statement which didn't address any of the actual points and just revolved around "you can't predict the future any better than we can so you suck too!", paraphrasing liberally.
Those actual points being what? His Op Ed painted peak oilers as deluded cranks who don't understand how the industry works; that graph shows that he's no cast in stone seer either, what more finesse do you want? I did my best to leave the personal attacks out of it, or dive into conspiracies regarding his motivations, too.
He can paint peakers as cranks because all it takes is a reference to some Ruppert/Kunstler/Savinar/Heinberg article/book, slip in a snide giggle as he does it, and let these "experts" speak for the group.
This isn't perhaps the thread for it, but we were discussing that exact list here.
http://peakoil.com/peak-oil-discussion/ ... 13-30.html$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortys list of Lynch points', '
')1) The discovery trend claim is bogus because it does not include revisions over time of field size estimates.
2) Modern technology is not accelerating field declines through "super straw" technology and whatnot.
3) There is quite a bit more recoverable oil than the 2 triliion barrels claimed by peakers.
Planetagenet was willing to concede that he was right about #3, but once that came up, he stopped posting in that thread.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dude', '
')I also referenced Freddy Hutter, who emailed me; Freddy does good work on keeping track of forecasters of all stripes, more analysis of their work benefits all. I don't care at all that Freddy is a cornucopian himself, contrary to my own position. I'm interested in data, evidence, presentations.
by yesplease » Mon 31 Aug 2009, 14:56:37
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DantesPeak', 'L')ynch has made many predictions here. His forecasts on oil supply and prices turned out to be very wrong.
He is also not above bashing others.
Check it out his record for yourself.
http://peakoil.com/peak-oil-discussion/ ... ilit=LynchHow do we know that poster is actually Lynch?
George "Dubya" Bush
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
by yesplease » Mon 31 Aug 2009, 15:07:57
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'O')h, I could beg to differ. What in the past seemed like simple exercises in engineering and political/public motivation now seem insurmountable to modern society.
As someone who seems to support their statements pertty well, what do you consider to be insurmountable?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'A')nyway, isn't warning people that we may be headed into a "gut-wrenching transition" worthwhile? This misapprehension that anyone who is cautionary on this subject by default believes we'll all end out our lives eating dog corpses is really irritating.
The problem is that the irrational posters tend to be the most profligate, so anyone who points out errors with anything, depending on the subject, tends to be instamatically labeled as a d00m3r/c0rni3 because that runs contrary to whatever the vibe of the forum/thread is. Another issue is lack of tolerance to criticism. I've got the admin on
that other site telling me she supports moderator bias, even when the poster who receives favorable bias is literally stating that climate scientists
can't do unit conversions just so they can assume their result is
maximally bad. Does assuming that climate scientists can't do grade school physics, after using those same climate scientists as a source, just to have a larger potentially bad figure, seem at all reasonable to you? People (d00m3rs and c0rni3s) can't expect to be taken seriously if they're literally making up shiz, or supporting made up shiz, as they go along.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
