[johnmarkos]

OK, so I've been reading up on peak oil off and on since November 2000. I was visiting a friend in Boston during the 2000 election and I stumbled upon Kenneth Deffeyes's site. I was shocked. Since then I've Googled peak oil and Hubbert Peak every so often but things have really been heating up in the past few months.

What I'm wondering is . . . where is the other side of the debate? I mean, I've read a little on the anti-peak oil side but not much. Has anyone come out and in a reasoned way said, "No, we're not going to peak and here's why," or, "No, we're not going to peak till 2035 and here's why," and backed up their arguments with solid figures? If there are people who can do that, it seems to me that a series of debates between representatives of both sides would benefit everyone. It would bring more publicity to the issue and it would help people understand where things are going.

If noone is willing to argue for the other side's case, then maybe we've already won. I suppose we should claim rhetorical victory and start writing our representatives, asking, "What are you going to do about peak oil?"

[trespam]

I think there are two different groups on the side who disagree with Peak Oil:

(1) The Cornucopians, like Julian Simon (now dead) who has reappared as Michael Lynch. These individuals--there are many of them--are primarily economists or ideologues who think technology will solve all problems, substitutes will be found, etc. etc. Essentially this group is pretty worthless and I see little point in debating them. They are zealots;

(2) Folks like PFC Energy Associates who put peak further out like this report which says that peak will occur sometime next decade if consumption growth continues or by 2025 if consumption growth slows down.

The USGS and EIA have cobbled together estimates that show peak much further out (e.g. 2035 or later) but these estimates are wishful. I don't think they are backed by much in the way of concrete geology.

So that's about as good as it gets. Peak is coming. Technology may help make the peak less painful or disastrous (e.g. improved performance of photovoltaics, etc) but I have not seen a good concrete argument showing that peak is not coming between now and 2025. And the evidence seems to argue for sooner rather than later.

[johnmarkos]

I agree with almost all of your points. My only disagreement is that I would argue it's worthwhile to debate the Cornucopians. If their arguments are easily defeated, the debate would help our rhetorical victory and bring more publicity for Peak Oil. I wonder if such a debate (say, between Michael Lynch and someone who's willing and qualified) is likely.

I read the PFC energy report and it only reaffirms my belief that the peak is on its way.

Question: why do the USGS and EIA stand by such wishful estimates?

[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('trespam', 'I') think there are two different groups on the side who disagree with Peak Oil:

(1) The Cornucopians, like Julian Simon (now dead) who has reappared as Michael Lynch. These individuals--there are many of them--are primarily economists or ideologues who think technology will solve all problems, substitutes will be found, etc. etc. Essentially this group is pretty worthless and I see little point in debating them.

[trespam]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'O')f course, to be fair, we should note that Julian Simon's predictions actually came true, as opposed to Paul Ehrlich who famously said: ""If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."

In fact, the cornucopians have always been right, going all the way to back to Malthus. And yet the doomers just keep saying: "they're worthless and I see little point in debating them." The doomers always condescend and call the cornucopians idiots, and then the cornucopians turn out to be right.

The cornucopians may be wrong this time, but considering the historical record, I think their view should be accorded the appropriate respect.

[davidyson]

JD,

disagreeing vigorously with most of what you propose most of the time, this time I think you're right. Let's have a look at the "other side" and their arguments. This issue is too grave to be only seen through a filter of selective perception.

trespam: Yes, Let's build transition models, let's get less dependant on the so-called "experts"!

Davidyson

[Canuck]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('johnmarkos', 'I') agree with almost all of your points. My only disagreement is that I would argue it's worthwhile to debate the Cornucopians.

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('trespam', '
')At this point, I will give credence to individuals or groups who can produce a model showing how a transition to new energy sources will take place, what assumptions they are relying on, etc.

[julianj]

Today the UK Observer newspaper had an 8 page special report on the future of energy entitled Fuel Britannia. (it doesn't appear to be online so I can't give you a link)

"Cheerleader for days of Plenty" -

Peak Oil is dismissed in less than a paragraph. "Professor Peter Odell is one of the more outspoken voices on the other side. There is plenty of oil, gas and coal to see us well into the second half of this century...argues Odell in his latest book Why Carbon Fuels Will Dominate the 21st Century's Global Energy Economy". (Odell's emeritus professor of energy studies at Erasmus University,Rotterdam)

I'm not an oil expert or geologist, and the whole thing confuses me....when I read Campbell, etc, I think he's right, and then I read Lynch, and I think he's got a strong point too. Odell seems to make a persuasive case that in the short term there's nothing to worry about. I suppose he's a "cornucopian".

However, for someone like me, it appears vitally important to work out who is correct on this matter...and like JohnMarkos I'd like to assure myself that I'm not being misled by some internet fad. I realise that the figures are in dispute or obscured in many cases, but perhaps there's some bullet-pointed short answers for the non-technical like myself who need subtitles for the hard of understanding. I'm really not happy with the idea that people who have different views should be dismissed as zealots.

Thanks

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('trespam', 'I') think there are two different groups on the side who disagree with Peak Oil:

(1) The Cornucopians, like Julian Simon (now dead) who has reappared as Michael Lynch. These individuals--there are many of them--are primarily economists or ideologues who think technology will solve all problems, substitutes will be found, etc. etc. Essentially this group is pretty worthless and I see little point in debating them. They are zealots;

[AirlinePilot]

When are you going to get off the "Peak has come and gone" Soap box??

For goodness sake, there is no such thing as a peak in the past if oil production has not reached the top yet. Even those of us who have been surprised by Shale acknowledge that. On a greater timeline a few years or even a DECADE means little as the problem of unplanned for decline still faces us squarely.

Resurrecting years old threads to somehow support your case remains childish and silly. The facts remain. High prices have done little else but nudge the numbers a bit higher. The 64000$ question is how long does that last?? All we are doing is using very high price levels to squeeze the remaining moisture out of the towel. That will not go on forever as you seem so happily to assume. At some point you cant wring the cloth hard enough to get anymore drips out of it. Same thing will happen with Shale, only quite a bit faster than traditional crude fields.

[dissident]

So many necro-threads being resurrected.

Some people can't face the implications of peak oil so they stick their head in the sand so to speak and spew denial. The same thing happens vis a vis global warming. The implications are just too dire for some to handle. Both the ultimate impacts and the pain of trying to address the problem. If only peak oil would cancel out global warming, but we do not live in a fairy tale.

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', 'T')echnology did in peak, so yes, "less painful" is quite the understatement. And a good argument wasn't required to blow peak oil 1st decade of the 21st out of the water, we are now solidly in 2nd decade and current reality says, what in the world is going to happen when American prototyped technology and can-do attitude rolls out into the Bazhenov?

[sparky]

.
Peak Oil is a geological fact , nobody really question this
some mention going to the outer planets to mine them ,
proving that their grasp of astrophysics is tenuous .

there is some who hold the sharp peak view ,
this is concerned about the proper crude oil
something which is liquid at atmospheric pressure and ambiant temperature

others , myself included who hold for a plateau
the depletion of the proper crude is mitigated by unconventionals
such as tar sands and heavy bitumens
coal to liquid is also a proven option
they are accessible at a cost ,
but there is no immediate supply problems for a couple of decades
(forget tight oil ,it's not very expandable and the depletion is horrendous )

as Rockman pointed out , nobody care where the gas at the pump come from
as long as they can afford some and it's on spec for using it

this bring the second debate the EROEI debate
some affirm a crashing of the return on the energy investment .

I can see their point ,
oil extraction is a very big bucks game
extracting one million barrels a day would set you back ten's of Billions
as the more difficult deposits are utilized
it would require an ever greater quantity of raw and embedded energy
more money for less oil

My variation is that the supply is not the problem
the real price is
there would be a rationing by price ,less rewarding usage would be curtained
the purchasing power of the ultimate consumer would be squeezed
that could lead us into a long recession , getting worst all the time
crude oil is the best energy source bar none
it has fueled the twentieth century boom ,
if we go back to coal we go back to the Nineteenth century
when workers energy was cheap
less war machines , more waves of infantry being butchered
child labor , women back in the kitchen , malnutrition an charity as social protection


there would always be "oil" , maybe we should speak of Peak Oil consumption

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('step back', '.').. we can do the hard hard maths.

[ROCKMAN]

Step back - "The point is that none of us has a brain so large it can handle the full complexity". So true. Difficult often to handle even small chunks. But a lifetime ago I hung out with a group that tended to simply matters: This is life and everyone dies. It's that simple...it's just the details that make it seem complicated. So keep it simple: just don't be one of those folks that wants to live forever.

A simple philosophy. But difficult to maintain over long periods of time. LOL.

[Quinny]

Think globally, Act locally!

[sparky]

.
..Here is one for the other side

Oil’s new age of plenty challenges old assumptions

http://blogs.reuters.com/breakingviews/ ... sumptions/

the argument is as thorough as any

[Pops]

I like the quote from Studs Terkel, when he was asked 'who wants to live to be 80 anyway', he said,
"Pretty well anyone who is 79."

[Quinny]

Is $40 - $80 realistic for cost of shale oil (can see the $80, but $40 seems very low!)