We are at the peak in world oil production...

Responding meaningfully to an issue is a good start. Calling environmental policy fascism coming right out of the gate does not rise to the standard.

 

Then you should try it, instead of going right for political labels and demonstrating otherwise.

 

I take it you bailed. I don't blame you.

As for peak oil, peak fossil fuel is more to the point. My guess is it will only drop precipitously if something like real cost pricing is employed, something faux free marketers avoid like the plague. If anyone wants to get a picture of one challenge waiting us down the road you might want to focus on something that doesn't get a lot of attention. Think - phytoplankton, oxygen and neurotoxins.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/06/17-2

 

I'm talking about crude oil production, not natural gas. I showed you what Hubbert said about that, and recent EIA data has confirmed is point. You were proven wrong on that.

You argue that natural gas will not peak. That doesn't counter the argument that crude oil peaked.

Now, you're arguing that the peak oil issue was solved thanks to an oil shock!

That's like saying that we can avoid peak oil by lowering production. Yeah, good idea.

So, tell us how it works.

 

What questions did you ask, who did you talk to, and what document or report did you publish to explain what you gathered?

Also, can you explain why you referred to EIA data that showed total production increasing through 2040 as proof that shale oil won't peak when the same forecast shows that shale oil will peak in 2020? Or do you have evidence showing that the latter won't take place?

I didn't learn from LATOC. I gathered information from news shared, and it is no different from what you've been sharing here.

The data I got from the forums which I visited are the same as what you are using: IEA and EIA data and projections.

Again, what questions did you ask, who did you talk to, etc?

What calls did you make, who did you talk to, and what documented information where you able to gather that counters what they've released in their reports and the data that has been shared to you in this thread?

 

Again, if you have uncertainty, and that means several possible outcomes, then you don't select the high resource case only, as that implies that there is no uncertainty.

I understand your point: according to the EIA, reserves are irrelevant. I agree, but how does that affect forecasts concerning production? I am referring to the two articles I shared in reference to the estimate cut.

 

Go ahead and mention the title of the report.

Also, explain how this makes the latter forecast for crude oil production wrong.

 

Easy, just look at oil prices and reports on global warming.

Also, availability refers to recoverable reserves, but you referred to an argument that estimates for these are not significant.

 

Why only energy? Didn't you refer to economics earlier? How about petrochemicals? Various material resources? Fresh water? Or will there suddenly be an abundance of energy that will solve all of these issues?

BTW, I'm still waiting for your evidence concerning the claim that there is no correlation between GDP and oil.

Finally, I don't think there will be a die off due to peak oil. The former can only take place given multiple predicaments, including worst-case scenarios for climate change.

 

I might get bored, and certainlyI have a job that keeps me occupied, but I rarely bail.

Well, when someone figures out how "real cost" pricing works, you'll let us know, right then?

 

I certainly did not. May I recommend reading comprehension classes?

Right..the evidence of increasing production does that. Didn't you learn ANYTHING about what DECLINE means from the slow of wit peakers you hung out with at LATOC?

What is a "peak oil issue"? Higher prices? Like back in the 70's? Terminal decline? Like the early 80's? Hysterical Malthusian blowhards? Like Campbell? Or you?

 

Then you shouldn't have said you did. But disavowing your involvement with that particular group, even after the fact, is a smart move.

I share information here from the URTeC conference in Denver, from August of 2013. From the AAPG National convention in Houston, in April of this year. From various SPE nationals, meetings with government and industry officials, presentations from back in the day to the PTTC, EIA working group meetings with industry folks (they happen about once a year, how many have you been invited to?), consulting with the NDIC, you know, those sorts of places.

You admittedly learned from the religious crack pottery of LATOC. Remember that "get together now while you still can, we're all DOOMED!!!!" thread from May of 2008? You must know the now I'm talking about, it had posts from only the best of the daddy issue gang!

Are you kidding? Outting myself to an original LATOCian church member? You must not be serious, the world knows what people coming from those forums are like…..and why the claims of their psychological issues mean you stay the hell away from them…

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...lling-video-before-killing-wife-daughter?lite

 

Scenario analysis is only a part of understanding uncertainty. The high resource case was discussed by the EIA representative during a presentation in one of the big amphitheaters, at the American Association of Petroleum Geologists national conference in April, of 2014, in Houston. George Brown convention center. April 8th to be exact. Around 9:15AM or so?

Where the hell were you, when there was actual LEARNING to be done? There were questions allowed, after the panel discussion, where the hell were YOU,to learn from state, federal and industry folks all talking about the development of these kinds of resources?

 

It wasn't a report, and it didn't have a title. Are you seriously suggesting that you haven't been able to find it? Even with the clues I've given on his political affiliation that you need to understand..and perhaps READ (hint hint hint)

There is a difference between guessing right the first time, and playing kick the can with continuing guesses. You see, Hubbert's entire claim to fame in the world of the peak oil ignorant, like you, is to ignore the claims that are wrong (which is nearly all of them) and focus on only the one that was RIGHT…ignoring prior guesses, bad guesses, wrong rates, different times, basically, everything except the ONE guess.

I once discussed this with a world class geoscientist, a thoughtful man with a career decades of science experience and publications in the field of resources and how to assess them, to this day I use his works as references in my own. The quote from him that struck me as completely accurate, related to Hubbert, was just this…"he got lucky".

No one can really argue that on that one guess, Hubbert came close enough to count as being right. It is just that all the rest of the time…he was wrong. They don't explain this within the dogma of your religion, for obvious reasons, you wouldn't be near as effective if you KNEW these facts, you need to take a pure BELIEF out into the world, in search of more gullible folks.

Good luck to you. And the Jehovah's Witnesses, and Moonies, and all the rest who do this type of missionary work.

 

I would venture that just as you don't even know when you are making an argument, you also don't have a clue what you are talking about when you say "availably refers to recoverable reserves". Find me any definition from the SPE, the official quantifier of reserves for this country, and also involved internationally, where they say ANYTHING resembling your statement, in particular confusing the word "availability" with reserves of any kind.

Here, considering how hard you are finding it to even use google, I'll make this one much easier for you.

Knock yourself out Mr I Learned From LATOC….some of us do this for a living, some learned their religious dogma from astrologers, maybe you can learn something here, certainly every time I've ever been through a reserve audit I do.

http://www.spe.org/industry/docs/Petroleum_Resources_Management_System_2007.pdf

 

As long as the sun is shining, there is no lack of ENERGY. Stop being peak oil myopic. My cars runs on nearly 40% wind and solar, how is yours doing? Still doing silly things like dumping in a valuable liquid feedstock when it is so much eco-friendly to use other fuels?

Resource scarcity is NOT a topic that Malthusian religious groupies are capable of discussing. It is a SERIOUS topic, which is why I have been so irritated over the years with malthusian religious groupies…they do their work so bad badly that they give everyone related to this topic a bad name. People think the scientists in this area are just as crackpot religious as peak oiler groupies, it turns the entire first 20 minutes of an presentation into an explanation about how those of us who do this work for a living aren't the silly, stupid, ignorant and religious peak oilers.

Only after that explanation can we get down to the basics of resource depletion, energy, economics, technological change and how these meld together into models, systems and programs designed to project things into the future.

I am quite aware of a correlation between GDP and oil. And how, and why, it can, and obviously will, change. Are you confused on this issue? Do you understand correlation as poorly as you do uncertainty?

Then you shouldn't have claimed to have LEARNED from LATOC. Because what do you think they were teaching? Didn't you even take the time to read Matt's book?

 

When you can prove you exist you'll little let us know, right?

Meaningless diversionary slobber on obvious bottom line matters suggests something desperate in your game.

 

If you don't wish to discuss the subject, considering how poorly it went for you last time, then stop bringing it up, and I won't have to point out how little you have actually considered the topic.

 

You do know that "reserve" is an economic measurement.

Hubbert's peak oil scenario was a huge joke.. a political joke.. to explain away the fact that domestic production simply could not compete.

 

You referred to the EIA forecasting increased production through 2040 as proof that shale oil won't peak for many years. The EIA forecast showed shale oil peaking in 2020, with natural gas making up for the production drop.

The EIA forecast until October 2013 shows crude oil production peaking. The EIA forecast for production through 2040 shows shale oil peaking in 2020. The increasing production is due to natural gas.

Peak oil refers to maximum rate of extraction reached for a given oil resource.

Don't confuse the phenomenon with the effects.

 

I didn't say I learned from LATOC. What I said is that I gathered data from what was shared. The same for this forum and in others.

Members had varying views: no peak in crude oil production for several decades, a peak but easy transition, a peak but difficult transition, a slow decline with replacements not making up for the drop, and a fast crash.

Please explain how what you've gathered counters EIA historical reports of crude oil production until October 2013, the EIA forecast for shale oil, and the EIA and IEA forecast for increasing production for global oil and gas through 2030 or 2040. References to sources will be useful.

The data presented to you comes from the EIA and the IEA. The estimate cuts from Monterey come from the EIA and the USGS. The analysis of oil in light of GDP uses data from USDA. A comment after the article refers to data from the WB. They don't come from LATOC.

Original member? I joined years later.

Also, I never made any forecasts.

 

Scenario analysis involves looking at different scenarios, which is what happens when you have uncertainty. By focusing on only the high resource case, you implicitly argue that there is no uncertainty.

How is this relevant in explaining your argument that uncertainty involves only looking at the high resource case?

 

Here is a transcript of an interview with Hubbert:

http://www.aip.org/history/ohilist/5031_4.html

He states that the 1938 paper was about geology curricula. He recalls writing no paper before that.

If you can point out in any latter article or interview what he said about peak oil in 1938, then I'd appreciate it.

More important, after doing so, please explain how this changes his latest argument concerning crude oil production.

Please explain what he guessed correctly the first time, why the second time involved a wrong guess. Again, recall that I am referring to his forecast for crude oil production, U.S. and world.

Please give a bibliographic source, and more important, how this counters the forecast for U.S. crude oil production and world oil production.

If he got it right, then what is the point of referring to an argument (which you need to identify) made in 1938?

Also, what I've been referring to all along is crude oil production, not natural gas.

 

Page 2:

http://www.spe.org/industry/docs/PRMS_guide_non_tech.pdf

 

Actually, it's the other way round: extraction without consideration of economics and even politics can reach a peak much later than when the latter two are involved.