Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Sorry, No such thing as Peak Oil

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.
Post a reply

Re: Sorry, No such thing as Peak Oil

Postby clueless » Fri 02 Feb 2007, 18:47:28

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') think you meant hack. a hacker is someone who illegally breaks into a computer database.

hack·er
1. a person or thing that hacks.
2. Slang. a person who engages in an activity without talent or skill: weekend hackers on the golf course.
3. Computer Slang. a. a computer enthusiast.
b. a microcomputer user who attempts to gain unauthorized access to proprietary computer systems.

Looks like we are both right (for a change).

Dude - I was a SW recruiter for 15 years. (when most computer guys were EE's).
User avatar
clueless
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1001
Joined: Tue 13 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Just the right place
Top

Re: Sorry, No such thing as Peak Oil

Postby TonyPrep » Fri 02 Feb 2007, 19:02:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smiley', 'T')he second question is what I call outrunning peakoil. If we curb our demand for oil at the same pace as the production declines we will have no problem.

I see that as a possibility. A lot of our oil consumption we can either exchange for other sources or discard by conservation. Therefore I am not a proponent of a quick and imminent collapse, because these theories ignore the flexibility we still have in our consumption pattern.

But it is like a family in financial perils. First they start looking for ways to decrease their spending, for instance by changing their cable subscription, going to a cheaper grocery store etc. This allows them to live the same life but cheaper. (conservation by efficiency)

If the problems continue they start changing their lifestyle. They might for instance sell their car, do away with their cable subscription entirely etc. At this point they start making adjustments to their quality of life, and they will be generally unhappy with the changes. (conservation)
Whilst conservation and efficiences will be necessary, I wonder if people consider the effects of this. In a few cases, it will just be the oil companies and energy companies that lose out, along with some of their employees. Some may feel this is an acceptable effect. But as efficiencies and conservation continue, it affects more and more people, just like you and me. For example, changing/cancelling your cable subscription, changing your grocery store, selling your car, and so on, may save you money but will cost some people their jobs and, in some cases, may cause entire companies to go broke. Efficiencies and conservation is a two edged sword. This is why individuals may be able to make financially painless changes but the economy, as a whole, can't.

The changes we have to make may start the detrimental effects that many people fear. Whether collapse is precipitated by such changes probably depends on people's reactions to the situation and how they see the future going.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Sorry, No such thing as Peak Oil

Postby TonyPrep » Fri 02 Feb 2007, 19:38:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('oil_rocks', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('clueless', 's')ome anonymous hacker on PeakOil.com


I think you meant hack. a hacker is someone who illegally breaks into a computer database.
oil_rocks, I'd hardly call your English exemplary enough to call others on theirs. And the word "hacker" is perfectly fine in the context it was used (I'm also a software developer).
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Sorry, No such thing as Peak Oil

Postby oil_rocks » Fri 02 Feb 2007, 21:00:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'Y')ou have presented no science here, so why do you believe that you're right and those people are wrong?
...
Again, wrong. Which reports are you referring to?


I am specifically talking about the EIA official report issued in june 2006 that says the earth currently has 1,293 B barrels of "proven" oil reserves and we consume 29 B/year. There are two plain facts cited in the report and it was immediately dismissed by Clueless as being erroneous numbers due to saddam hussien influencing the scientists. Then some other guy also completely dismissed the report stating that the word "proven" was misused by the scientists and that they really meant that they hoped the oil was there.

Now whether u think the word proven means proven, or hopefully or even if u think it means a bar of soap, its still the numbers you should use in your calculations if you want to get accurate results. They don't issue these reports so that other scientists can use smaller numbers in all their calculations. that doesn't make much sense.

The report went on to say that the amount of "proven" oil reserves goes up by about 1% each year due to new discoveries. I am just stating facts from the report, not my personal beliefs.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/oil.html

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'P')lease present the mathematical argument.


Its pretty easy to see that 1,293 divided by 29 is going to be much more than a couple of years. its even much more than 20 years. Now you might be tempted to factor in the variable of expected increase in annual consumption. Great, but if you do that be sure to also factor in the expected 1% annual increase in proven reserves. If you factor in one without the other you are not being honest.

Well we are talking about reaching the “peak” and not total depletion right? yes, and I have addressed that saying that as long as the demand matches the production, hitting the peak really doesn’t matter. If consumption comes down a little and new discoveries continue at the same rate, then it is very possible to maintain a peak that lasts for 20, 50 even a hundred years. Simple mathematics tells us that.

now for all of you who think the consumption increase is moving up at an exponential rate year to year, you are also wrong because the report went on to site that the rate of increase has actually dropped over the past couple of years. The facts are what they are.

So once again, I am not claiming that we don’t have a problem, I am merely stating that the problem is much smaller than many on this board are making it out to be. And making the claim that Saddam Hussein has tricked all the world’s scientists is not going to convince me otherwise.
User avatar
oil_rocks
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri 26 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Sorry, No such thing as Peak Oil

Postby clueless » Fri 02 Feb 2007, 21:37:33

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')addam Hussein has tricked all the world’s scientists is not going to convince me otherwise.


Enough of your strawman rhetoric. OPEC does not allow "Third Party" inspections of it's oil reserves and they all magically doubled in the early nineties. If you want to continue the fantasy you currently exist in feel free to do so. But just rememember that does not make it true.

And the EIA is a function of the federal govt...And we all know how honest they are, right ? I mean these are basically the same guys as the USGS that missed the US peak in 1970 by (I can't remember) how many years ???

Anybody want to finish that one...I think Oil_ROcks is about done.

All he has left to disprove is my analogy about Sadaam Hussein "deceiving the scientists of the world" which I never said in the first place.
User avatar
clueless
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1001
Joined: Tue 13 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Just the right place
Top

Re: Sorry, No such thing as Peak Oil

Postby TonyPrep » Fri 02 Feb 2007, 21:50:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('oil_rocks', 'I') am specifically talking about the EIA official report issued in june 2006 that says the earth currently has 1,293 B barrels of "proven" oil reserves and we consume 29 B/year.
Well, their latest figures show world oil demand to be closer to 31 billion barrels. The 2005 average daily demand translates to 30.6 billion per year and the figures they have so far for 2006 show an increase over the same periods of 2005. So let's assume 31 billion barrels per year. The "proven" reserves of 1.293 trillion barrels would last (if they could be produced at the present rate) for 41 years. Of course, as the EIA project demand growth, this would fall to something like 29 years, if it could all be produced at the required rate. At that point there would be no more of the current proven reserves and that would be that. Of course there will be more oil found, but history appears to show that new discoveries are likely to be less. So, given the profile of production, we are likely to hit a peak in the next decade or so, even on the figures that you claim support your case. So why do you say they support your case? $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('oil_rocks', 'T')here are two plain facts cited in the report and it was immediately dismissed by Clueless as being erroneous numbers due to saddam hussien influencing the scientists.
You still haven't quite grasped the Saddam reference, have you?$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('oil_rocks', ']')Then some other guy also completely dismissed the report stating that the word "proven" was misused by the scientists and that they really meant that they hoped the oil was there.
No he didn't, he merely pointed out that you take the figure as fact, whilst the term "proven", even in your EIA report is defined as an estimate with a certain confidence level. Please don't mischaracterise other's views.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('oil_rocks', 'N')ow whether u think the word proven means proven, or hopefully or even if u think it means a bar of soap, its still the numbers you should use in your calculations if you want to get accurate results.
Leaving out the poor witticisms, you still don't get accurate results, you get estimates. And all the estimates so far (including the ones you say you've read) point to peak well before the century+ you hope for.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('oil_rocks', 'T')he report went on to say that the amount of "proven" oil reserves goes up by about 1% each year due to new discoveries. I am just stating facts from the report, not my personal beliefs.Do you expect that to continue indefinitely? As it's not your belief, just what is your belief?$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('oil_rocks', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'P')lease present the mathematical argument.

Its pretty easy to see that 1,293 divided by 29 is going to be much more than a couple of years. its even much more than 20 years. Now you might be tempted to factor in the variable of expected increase in annual consumption. Great, but if you do that be sure to also factor in the expected 1% annual increase in proven reserves. If you factor in one without the other you are not being honest.OK, please present your figures and we can check if you got it right. Please use the most up to date figures you can, from the EIA site.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('oil_rocks', 'W')ell we are talking about reaching the “peak” and not total depletion right? yes, and I have addressed that saying that as long as the demand matches the production, hitting the peak really doesn’t matter.Indeed you have. The term demand, in official figures, means consumption. Of course, this cannot exceed supply. But the real problem is if the demand for fuel is not met by supply. By "demand" I mean the desire for, not the actual consumption. A shortfall in demand means problems with the economy, a lower consumption means problems with the economy, especially if that continues to decline, year after year.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('oil_rocks', 'I')f consumption comes down a little and new discoveries continue at the same rate, then it is very possible to maintain a peak that lasts for 20, 50 even a hundred years. Simple mathematics tells us that.It's possible but unlikely. Please show your mathematical working for the production declines and consumption declines, to show how a plateau can be maintained for that long. I've already shown how long current proven reserves would last in the impossible scenario that production remains at current levels.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('oil_rocks', 'n')ow for all of you who think the consumption increase is moving up at an exponential rate year to year, you are also wrongNo one has said this here, so why bring it up?
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Sorry, No such thing as Peak Oil

Postby clueless » Fri 02 Feb 2007, 22:21:10

you know I cannot believe we got 17 pages out of this, but it was good - Kind of a mid term exam.

PO 101, if you will.

OIl_rocks - no hard feelings I admire your persistence. I also had a tough time coming to grips with accepting things are not as they seem.

I'll see you in the "peak ethanol" forum !

BTW: I talked to a guy who was a PM buidling an ethanol plant and he said they were still "working the bugs out" on the other plants, I asked him if it was profitable he said "no, not yet" ...Quite a big difference from how things always have been in the refinery business right ?

I also talked to a structural engineer who was leaving his wind turbine company because they are going out of business. I asked him why they were going under. Well, as it turns out it costs about 3.5 million to build and raise a wind turbine. That means you have to sell an awful lot of electricity to make your investment back.

The long and short of it is you will never make your investment back and without tax breaks (which end this year) they are unprofitable. Which is why you have two fortune 50 companies building wind farms - They will get the tax breaks and basically after the accountants are done, they will have a free wind farm. Which of course would be profitable.
User avatar
clueless
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1001
Joined: Tue 13 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Just the right place
Top

Re: Sorry, No such thing as Peak Oil

Postby MonteQuest » Sun 04 Feb 2007, 23:35:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('oil_rocks', ' ')Its pretty easy to see that 1,293 divided by 29 is going to be much more than a couple of years. its even much more than 20 years.


And it's pretty easy to see that you cannot produce 29 billion barrels each year until you run out. Somewhere along the line you will reach a maximum, or peak in oil production. Oil will be around for a long time, but producing 30 billion barrels each year will not be.

The law of diminishing returns guarantees that.

Currrently, discoveries would have to be 4 times use to prevent this peaking, as we are using 4 barrels for every one we discover now.
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: Sorry, No such thing as Peak Oil

Postby TonyPrep » Mon 05 Feb 2007, 01:26:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'c')ome on guys: I'm surprised no one here has picked up this basic misunderstanding.
Both Monte and myself picked it up but have, perhaps, not explained your point as explicitly as you did. However, oil_rocks seems to have disappeared from this discussion; maybe he has realised he has no real response the multitude of errors in his understanding, that have been pointed out.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Sorry, No such thing as Peak Oil

Postby smiley » Mon 05 Feb 2007, 14:52:19

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('tonyprep', 'W')hilst conservation and efficiences will be necessary, I wonder if people consider the effects of this. In a few cases, it will just be the oil companies and energy companies that lose out, along with some of their employees
.

Tony, you are right in saying that a change in our consumption behavior will affect our economy. To assume beforehand that this change is going to be all bad, well I'm not certain.

You have to wonder what the economy is in the first place. Wise men with ties will tell you that consists of numbers like the GNP. To the average man the economy is food, shelter, employment etc. I've always favored the tangible version of the economy as the numerical version is too subjective.

What is going to happen when we start conserving? Well it might be the exact opposite of what happened when we started consuming. What energy did was to replace manual labor. We invented machines to do our work so we could do other things.

If you put that movement in reverse you get the opposite. For instance less mobility could imply a reverse of the wallmartisation and a return of the local shops (more employment). On the other hand, jobs like general manager of the desk of the first office on the second floor might not be such a good career choice.

So then you have a situation where a lot of the high profile jobs disappear, but a lot of low paying jobs are newly formed. From an economic point of view it could be a disaster as high-paying jobs contribute a lot more to the economy, but from a food/shelter/employment view it wouldn't be that bad.

It won't probably be good, but it needn't be so bad as the "economic indicators" suggest..
User avatar
smiley
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2274
Joined: Fri 16 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Europe
Top

Re: Sorry, No such thing as Peak Oil

Postby oil_rocks » Fri 09 Feb 2007, 04:50:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smiley', 'I')f you put that movement in reverse you get the opposite. For instance less mobility could imply a reverse of the wallmartisation and a return of the local shops (more employment).


simley, this is an interesting theory and perhaps you are correct, but i'm not sure there is a correlation between energy consumption and employment. Being that this country clearly consumes the most energy but also has the lowest unemployment. how would you reconcile that? but who knows. its a little off topic.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'I')n conclusion using these figures peak occurs at 2,293/2 or 1,146. We are 146 billion barrels away from that figure and therefore peak is 4 1/2 years.


Thank you pstarr, you have made it very easy for me to make my point. You see this is the problem i have with the whole peak oil crisis theory. Its based on real science and it uses all the real numbers and runs them through real calculations, BUT the only problem is, it doesn't account for future unknown factors.

You see I am actually 1 step ahead of today's greatest scientists because while i admit they are making predictions based on the best information they have at the moment, none of them is factoring in the variables of future technological improvements. And since we all know that improvement continue to be made on yearly basis, then my calculations, factoring in future developments are actually more accurate than today's scientists who simply omit those variables.

for example, you have calculated 4.5 years to hit the peak, but you have not factored in the reality that known deposits increase by 1% annually due to new discoveries. After factoring that in, you will have to push your date back several years.

You also haven’t considered what will happen to the demand of oil if the price goes up. your calculations assume the price will stay the same.

many, many other variables could easily be factored in as well which will give us more accurate numbers, but will also push the date WAY back.

so like i have stated many times, i don't dispute the fact that we are running out of oil, i simply dispute the fact that we are on the verge of any kind of massive crisis. Trust me guys, we will still be making all these same arguements 10 years from now. In fact its kind of fun to read the older posts on this forum from years ago when they were predicting we only had months to go. I'm sure others will look back on this thread in the years to come and get a little chuckle out of it.
User avatar
oil_rocks
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri 26 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Sorry, No such thing as Peak Oil

Postby AirlinePilot » Fri 09 Feb 2007, 05:20:52

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('oil_rocks', 'Y')ou see this is the problem i have with the whole peak oil crisis theory. Its based on real science and it uses all the real numbers and runs them through real calculations, BUT the only problem is, it doesn't account for future unknown factors.

You see I am actually 1 step ahead of today's greatest scientists because while i admit they are making predictions based on the best information they have at the moment, none of them is factoring in the variables of future technological improvements. And since we all know that improvement continue to be made on yearly basis, then my calculations, factoring in future developments are actually more accurate than today's scientists who simply omit those variables.

Trust me guys, we will still be making all these same arguements 10 years from now. In fact its kind of fun to read the older posts on this forum from years ago when they were predicting we only had months to go. I'm sure others will look back on this thread in the years to come and get a little chuckle out of it.


Oil rocks, Man I hope your right and we all got it wrong! I truly mean that.

Unfortunately your statement above about "factoring in the variables of future technological improvements" Is naive and unquantifiable. Your very premise assumes "something" will save us. That something is in the future and at the present time does not exist. Its also an argument that can't be proven. For those of us a bit more grounded it cant be considered.

From a perspective of logic, the current geopolitical climate, and the current rates of production of liquid fuels, your argument fails.

I am curious how old you are? I notice the younger folks in here have much higher hopes for the world at large. Most of us "older heads", who have been around the block a few times, don't seem to share the optimism. My age observation is NOT meant to be slander or insult, Im really interested.
User avatar
AirlinePilot
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4378
Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South of Atlanta
Top

Re: Sorry, No such thing as Peak Oil

Postby TonyPrep » Fri 09 Feb 2007, 06:00:26

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('oil_rocks', 'I')'m sure others will look back on this thread in the years to come and get a little chuckle out of it.
I think some are getting a chuckle out if it now, oil_rocks.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('oil_rocks', 'i')'m not sure there is a correlation between energy consumption and employment. Being that this country clearly consumes the most energy but also has the lowest unemployment. how would you reconcile that?
I'm not quite sure which theory you were responding to, but where did you get the idea that the US has the lowest unemployment rate? According to the CIA World Factbook the US ranks 48th in the world, on unemployment though you're certainly right on energy use.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('oil_rocks', 'I')ts based on real science and it uses all the real numbers and runs them through real calculations, BUT the only problem is, it doesn't account for future unknown factors. ... my calculations, factoring in future developments are actually more accurate than today's scientists who simply omit those variables.
The trouble is, you've never given us your calculations, only your conclusions. So you've figured out how to use unknown factors in your calculations? Then let us see the calculations.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('oil_rocks', 'b')ut you have not factored in the reality that known deposits increase by 1% annually due to new discoveries.
Why do you factor in a 1% increase for the foreseeable future? This is a belief, not a calculation. Do you actually know what the discovery rate has been in recent years? By the way, most calculations of peak most certainly do include a best guess at yet to be discovered oil, so I don't know why you keep repeating the falsehood that they don't.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('oil_rocks', 'Y')ou also haven’t considered what will happen to the demand of oil if the price goes up.And have you figured out what a decrease in demand actually means to the economy and, therefore, the lives of many people? (And remember that you previously claimed that demand will continue to increase for decades).$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('oil_rocks', 's')o like i have stated many times, i don't dispute the fact that we are running out of oilApart from the infinite amount of discovery (1% of deposits, year after year), that is. Relying on this figure means that you most certainly do believe that oil is infinite - think of what 1% means if repeated year on year.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: Sorry, No such thing as Peak Oil

Postby clueless » Fri 09 Feb 2007, 13:25:34

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')UT the only problem is, it doesn't account for future unknown factors.


OK - We are living by "unkown factors" ? If this is what you are basing your future expectations on you are in for a big surprise. Most people on this forum are simply extending trend lines from the last forty years. You may see bumps, but the overall trends will remain the same. Your argument of "higher prices will bring a solution" is just plain stupid. Have higher Gold prices brought a replacement for Gold or Copper ? The answer is no - Higher prices are a reflection of a supply problem - Will higher food prices bring a replacement for food ? No...Oil_rocks you worship the god of money - Money is a medium of exchange plain and simple. Money is pouring into the energy industry now, are they finding a "magic bullet" ? No - They are building more high polluting coal plants, are you so hypnotized by the "market" that you fail to realize this ?

Ethanol seems to be the "unknown solution" you consistently allude to, this may get votes for Bush Republicans from Iowa, but is far from a solution to our current paradigm. Growing liquid fuel is an idiotic solution the masses will fall for, but will not affect the future in any meaningfull way.
User avatar
clueless
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1001
Joined: Tue 13 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Just the right place
Top

Re: Sorry, No such thing as Peak Oil

Postby oil_rocks » Fri 09 Feb 2007, 14:13:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'T')he trouble is, you've never given us your calculations, only your conclusions. So you've figured out how to use unknown factors in your calculations? Then let us see the calculations.

I did give my calculations earlier in the post in a very detailed way. based on science it showed oil lasting for several hundred years.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'W')hy do you factor in a 1% increase for the foreseeable future?

Because that has been the trend over the past 20 years. (source is the EIA) - once again, this is just plain science.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AirlinePilot', 'Y')our very premise assumes "something" will save us.

Don't miss-quote me. I have not been claiming that some magical solution will "save" us. I have merely been pointing out the obvious fact that today's dire predictions will continue to be pushed further and further back as time goes by.

Now here is a question I would love for any one of you to tackle. I mean I would absolutely LOVE to hear someone even attempt to answer this: It seems that one of the most solid and sacred planks of the oil crisis platform revolves around the conspiracy theory that sadam hussein and the saudis and others are giving falsely optimistic estimates of the amount of oil they posses. First of all says who? which mythical person is it that discovered and revealed this heinous activity? Or could it be that it was just made up on the blog-a-sphere?

But the even better question is what on earth would motivate a leader of a country to give falsely high estimates??? This simply does not make any sense. since the price of oil is tied to the supply, that means it would always, and I mean ALWAYS be in the best interest of a country to under-report their reserves. not overestimate!! Think about it. what would u do if u were a world leader? The answer is obvious. Can anyone name even a single benefit a world leader would gain by over-reporting their reserves?? This is simply one of those stupid theories that goes around the web and people buy into it because its so much fun to believe a conspiracy theory, even if it doesn't make any sense at all!

can anyone answer that question? anyone?
User avatar
oil_rocks
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri 26 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Sorry, No such thing as Peak Oil

Postby Bas » Fri 09 Feb 2007, 14:20:38

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') did give my calculations earlier in the post in a very detailed way. based on science it showed oil lasting for several hundred years.



What!? :lol:
Bas
 
Top

Re: Sorry, No such thing as Peak Oil

Postby clueless » Fri 09 Feb 2007, 14:24:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t seems that one of the most solid and sacred planks of the oil crisis platform revolves around the conspiracy theory that sadam hussein and the saudis and others are giving falsely optimistic estimates of the amount of oil they posses. First of all says who? which mythical person is it that discovered and revealed this heinous activity? Or could it be that it was just made up on the blog-a-sphere?

But the even better question is what on earth would motivate a leader of a country to give falsely high estimates???


This is yet another case of your ignoracne. Opec based production quotas in the early nineties on resereves estimates, and all the OPEC reseverves magically doubled. I am not saying any conspiricy - You are the consipircy theorist by your claims that the Peak Oil "theory" is based on ....(in an earlier post)" I said if that is so then the US oil peak and subsequent decline is a consipricy.

I am not even saying the reserve estimates are lies - Just simply they are taken at face value and are not inspected by third parties. If you want to trust corrupt middle east dictators that still conduct public beheadings then go ahead, don't expect me to do so.

I'll bet you are one of those guys who thought the .COM crash was an "unforseen event" let me tell you something clueless one, why did they accuraltey predict growth for a solid five years and miss the decline in growth ??? The answer is to decieve ignorant people like you..

Enough said on your Sadaam Hussein conspiricy theory.
User avatar
clueless
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1001
Joined: Tue 13 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Just the right place
Top

Re: Sorry, No such thing as Peak Oil

Postby PrairieMule » Fri 09 Feb 2007, 14:28:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('oil_rocks', '
') i'm not sure there is a correlation between energy consumption and employment. Being that this country clearly consumes the most energy but also has the lowest unemployment. how would you reconcile that?


That's easy, just look at the morning commute in any american metroplex with a population over 1 million. Many Jobs occupied but skilled workers commuting in from exurbs. A system designed around cheap abundant energy. Now add a extra 2-3 thousand dollars in commuting costs to a financially strapped middle class leveraged to bankrupcy. It may reverse the walmartization but how do you re-train thousands of white collar workers to become butchers, mechanics, and farmers. Certainly not overnight.

Those that don't see the light will eventually feel the heat.
If you give a man a fish you will have kept him from hunger for a day. If you teach a man to fish he will sit in a boat and drink beer all day.
User avatar
PrairieMule
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2927
Joined: Fri 02 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: In a Nigerian compound surrounded by mighty dignataries
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



cron