oil gusher in california

[RGR]

Hubberts methods have been thoroughly discredited from several angles. Would you like a reference?

Yes I would like a reference please.

Sure. We'll start with an easy one.

Cavallo, A.J., 2004, Hubbert's petroleum production model: an evaluation and implications for World Oil production forecasts, Natural Resources Research, Vol. 13, no. 4

Basically, Hubberts method will predict a URR for the US between 200 and 600 billion barrels with the same statistical goodness of fit measure. Phrased another way, you can honestly pick any line through the data you'd like as long as you don't mind an error bar of 3X, at a minimum. Cavallo didn't test outside those bounds.

So, when we apply the same method to the world, our error bar can range all the way up to 6 or 9 billion barrels for URR without any issues at all. Little bit higher than peakers are claiming right now, ain't it!

Hard to build a peak at the halfway point when the halfway point could be another 60 years down the road, eh?

 

[RGR]

Everybody acknowledges the problem, our President was telling us we were running out back in 1977. Didn't you notice? The solution was.....we ignored his geologically ignorant butt.

That is the universal problem isn't it. The Peakers assume that there must be a problem for their solutions to work. It's kind of like medicine, if you have to believe in it for it to work, it ain't medicine. It's a belief system.

Sure. It's why its easier to just label it a religion and be done with it. Lets be honest, these people don't actually STUDY this stuff prior to buying in...they buy in first (I want the world to end, I want yuppies to die, SUV drivers are scum, my life sucks and I'm depressed) and then cast around for a decent trigger for a Rapture scenario.

They are fascinating from a psychological standpoint, even when you bump into the one who knows something about geology, like say Colin Campbell, his belief system, his NEED to find a way to kill off people, overwhelms him. And he starts off by saying things which are patently ignorant, the guy doesn't even really show up at the international conferences anymore, my bet is he got tired of being laughed at during round table discussions. How many times would YOU want 20 years of bad predictions kicked back in your face to demonstrate how silly you've been?

 

[mdn2000]

U.S. geologist M. King Hubbert, flawed analysis based on a basic mis-understanding of geology.

Hubberts concept isn't based on geology, its based on trendology. Two completely different things.

When U.S. geologist M. King Hubbert introduced his Peak Oil Theory he did not understand the geology of the earth.

Yes he did. Hubbert was a great scientist with multiple contributions to the geosciences. Peak oil was not what he is famous for in the geoscience community, and I think he might have found it amusing, the religion people have built around his trendology.

I have admitted time and time again I am not an expert on Hubbert. I have challenged people to post a link to the theory or whatever Hubbert wrote, no link so far, links to articles about Hubbert but no theory. So if you know much or more, go ahead how geology does not play a part in Hubberts' theory. I am not saying I disagree, simply that I have never seen the theory and with as many posts that I take on, I have not the time for another research project which is kind of what an adequate response entails.

No geology in Peak Oil theory. I am curious and I stand by my statement about Hubberts. What was his great contribution you refer to, I am also curious as to why you mention a great contribution but dont mention what that contribution was.

I have no idea of who this man was. He is not mentioned, or if he is mentioned I missed it or have not gotten to Hubberts in any books I have. Boy, I wish I was home in California, instead I am in Brazil and will not return to the United States before March of next year. Eight weeks, I miss my books. I can enlarge my thumbnail below and see my entire John McPhee collection on the second shelf from the top, 2nd from the left. The next shelf, 2nd from the top, has my two volume set on oil, wish I finished reading it.

 

[RGR]

Yes he did. Hubbert was a great scientist with multiple contributions to the geosciences. Peak oil was not what he is famous for in the geoscience community, and I think he might have found it amusing, the religion people have built around his trendology.

I have admitted time and time again I am not an expert on Hubbert. I have challenged people to post a link to the theory or whatever Hubbert wrote, no link so far, links to articles about Hubbert but no theory.

For starters, links do not define the known world. Prior to the web, there was this place called a library. A magical place, which put the world at your fingertips, with these devices called books. Journals. Great stuff.

With that in mind, what parts of Hubbert's work are you interested in?

So if you know much or more, go ahead how geology does not play a part in Hubberts' theory.

Sure. Take some data. Draw a line through it. Assume that where the data stops, and the extrapolation of the line continues, this must obviously be predictive in nature. Hubbert did it in 1956 with grid paper and a french curve. Presto. No geology required.

No geology in Peak Oil theory. I am curious and I stand by my statement about Hubberts. What was his great contribution you refer to, I am also curious as to why you mention a great contribution but dont mention what that contribution was.

Fluid flow through porous media. Still being quoted in hydrology journals today. The basics of stress fields in rocks, used to predict which way hydraulic fracturing is likely to go, and rock elasticity.

 

[mdn2000]

Yes he did. Hubbert was a great scientist with multiple contributions to the geosciences. Peak oil was not what he is famous for in the geoscience community, and I think he might have found it amusing, the religion people have built around his trendology.

I have admitted time and time again I am not an expert on Hubbert. I have challenged people to post a link to the theory or whatever Hubbert wrote, no link so far, links to articles about Hubbert but no theory.

For starters, links do not define the known world. Prior to the web, there was this place called a library. A magical place, which put the world at your fingertips, with these devices called books. Journals. Great stuff.

With that in mind, what parts of Hubbert's work are you interested in?

So if you know much or more, go ahead how geology does not play a part in Hubberts' theory.

Sure. Take some data. Draw a line through it. Assume that where the data stops, and the extrapolation of the line continues, this must obviously be predictive in nature. Hubbert did it in 1956 with grid paper and a french curve. Presto. No geology required.

No geology in Peak Oil theory. I am curious and I stand by my statement about Hubberts. What was his great contribution you refer to, I am also curious as to why you mention a great contribution but dont mention what that contribution was.

Fluid flow through porous media. Still being quoted in hydrology journals today. The basics of stress fields in rocks, used to predict which way hydraulic fracturing is likely to go, and rock elasticity.

I am well aware that links do not define the world we live in, that said, you must admit links define much of the knowledge we can present on a message board. If one is knows the subject then one can present a pretty good post and it may be accepted. If one can link to an article or two that helps. Given the amount of technical papers found on the web that can be presented with a link. Cut and Paste from a pdf is great stuff. Having to type a quote from a book is cumbersome and takes time. I guess you skipped over my comments on owning a library and decided to take a poke at me as if I am a child that must be schooled as to what a book is. Take a look, that is a thumbnail of most the books I have. Over Eight Hundred Books are in my pic.

Yes libraries are great, I own one. Over a thousand books, I have a bad memory but I have read a fair percentage of my books.

So it seems you need a bit of schooling of what can be found in links. Seems the same thing as a library if you know what to search for.

Energy from Fossil Fuels

One of the most disturbing ecological influences of recent millennia is the human species' proclivity for the capture of energy, resulting in a progressve in crease of the human populaton. This is borne out by the growth curve of human population since 1650, shown in Fig. 4, based on the studies of Carr Saunders (1), and the recent estimate of Davis *3). According to these estimates the world population has increased from about 545 million in 1659 to 2,181 miullion by 1940. The greatest rate of increase during this period has been that of the last half=century, during which the world population has been increasing at such a rate as to double itself every century, or at an annual rate of increase of -.7 %

Such a rate in not "normal," as can be seen by backward extrapolation. If it had prevailed throughout human history, beginning with the mythical Adam and Eve, .........

From the foregoing data it should be clear that while we are concerned with a progression of ancient origin, the developments within the last century, and especially within the last few decades are decidedly exceptional. One cannot refrain from asking, "Where is it taking us, how long can we keep it up".

....Yet despite this, it will still be physically possible to stabilize the human population at some reasonable figure, and by means of the energy from sunshine alone utilize low-grade concentratons of materials and still maintain a high energy industrial civilization indefinitely.

That is what is found in a link, like it, its a bit more that you were willing to present in response to me. Nice huh. Seems Hubbert did not believe in Adam and Eve and took the opportunity to call it a MYTH. Tells a lot about Hubbert.

I also ran across someone who described Hubbert as hot headed, easily angered, I hope I saved the page, most likely without a link I wont find it, but I am using Google chrome so I will restore the last few "tabs", I closed. That is what technology is, get out of the library and we find that using google and technology is useful, thanks for educating me what books and libraries are, you can thank me later as I teach you about technology.

So based on what I find using modern technology vs what you have presented, I have found Hubbert is most likely a Liberal, no belief in God, much in his article talks about the population and the increase not being normal. Seems to be about what your saying about Cambell or the "Peakers".

So your obviously a bit perturbed about something I wrote, you defended Hubbert as a great Geologist, your posting everywhere in Energy threads discussing Oil, so your the new expert to challenge us all, right, I say perturbed for you ask a question, what about Hubbert am I interested in, come on, is that a taunt, you got to be kidding right.

Think about the context in which where you ask that of me, you obviously read my posts, right, you have to be able to see what the hell we are talking about, whats with the game.

Thats all Hubbert did, thanks, I understand. Of course that is wrong, geology is required. Hubbert states as much in, Science, February 4, 1949. I would give you the link and quote but you got your library card so you can jump in the old station wagon, burn the gas, and go read it if you care to discuss the geology Hubbert used. Again, if only there was a link to the theory we could see if its only "grid paper, a pencil, and a french curve." Somehow I find that to be a pretty lame explanation of such a great scientists work, regardless what one thinks of the theory (have you figured out which theory I have been asking about yet?)

Sure. Take some data. Draw a line through it. Assume that where the data stops, and the extrapolation of the line continues, this must obviously be predictive in nature. Hubbert did it in 1956 with grid paper and a french curve. Presto. No geology required.

You quote me well, how come you need me to ask again what I wanted to know about Hubbert, how could you miss that and quote me at the same time. Its pretty simple, I want to see Hubbert's peak oil theory, I dont accept grid paper and a line drawn through, that is bullshit. I know you wont be able to provide the theory, right, its in the library, it may be on the web, and I may find it yet, it may be on the site I just linked to, it appears not but it may. Everyone knows the theory but nobody can produce a thing directly from the theory. That is what raises my eyebrows.

Anyhow, thanks for the education on Links and Books. I am also far from done, I am holding back, you missed something very relevant, I may be wrong about my assumption, I am busy looking for links, they actually lead to books, like you find in libraries, which reminds me, I had to type my quotes and I am not going back to correct my typing errors or fixing my dyslexic gaffs.

 

[mdn2000]

Maybe this is the theory, and being how everyone has described the theory as Hubbert's Peak Oil Theory, this seems to be why I could not find it, its not called that at all. Did someone point this out? I dont think so. Hubbert is not an author to "Peak Oil Theory". At least as far as I have found yet. Looks like no cut and paste, its a scanned abstract, I should check but its at least thirty tabs over (that may be confusing to those who use the library, a tab is a page on my google chrome browser, which I guess I have to explain what google chrome is to those who carry their library card_)

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/TechniquesOfPrediction.pdf

 

[RGR]

I guess you skipped over my comments on owning a library and decided to take a poke at me as if I am a child that must be schooled as to what a book is. Take a look, that is a thumbnail of most the books I have. Over Eight Hundred Books are in my pic.

Actually, no, I wasn't insulting you, I was making sure you didn't mind what might happen next. My personal JPT (Journal of Petroleum Technology) collection goes back to the 50's. My personal AAPG Bulletin collection starts somewhere in the 50's as well. My SPE digital library is complete from inception through 1997. I've got at least a decades worth of Natural Resources Research as well. I'm running short on room, because all of this is just the paper stuff in my office.

A lawyer has his law library, a scientist must have his reference material.

So it seems you need a bit of schooling of what can be found in links. Seems the same thing as a library if you know what to search for.

Energy from Fossil Fuels

Everybody has that one, its the original precept for the peak oil religion. How about the one they never quote, the USGS Circular 725 which uses Hubbert's reserve growth equations in USGS assessment methodologies? You see, thats the one which first establishes that Hubbert worked for the USGS (an organization peakers love to hate) and worse yet, built the concept which keeps shooting them straight in the face when it comes to their bad predictions. They don't mention that one often. Haven't been able to find a link for that one yet, but it should be out there somewhere. You won't find peakers mentioning that little bit of history though.

So your obviously a bit perturbed about something I wrote, you defended Hubbert as a great Geologist, your posting everywhere in Energy threads discussing Oil, so your the new expert to challenge us all, right, I say perturbed for you ask a question, what about Hubbert am I interested in, come on, is that a taunt, you got to be kidding right.

Hubbert had some...interesting...personal characteristics. Fortunately, I can judge the quality of what he thought by tracing his publications through time, science is great that way, comparing his to both his detractors and supporters, and seeing where it grew over the years. I don't really care if he believed in God, voted Democrat or chased sheep around his farm looking for something his wife wouldn't provide, as long as it didn't show up as an advocacy position in peer reviewed research.

Its pretty simple, I want to see Hubbert's peak oil theory, I dont accept grid paper and a line drawn through, that is bullshit.

You provided the appropriate reference to answer your own question. The religion of peak was built on that 1956 publication. You don't like the way he did it by counting grids on the paper? I would suggest a seance, tell the man about it yourself. Certainly you won't find me defending the ridiculous position advocated by peakers.

I know you wont be able to provide the theory, right, its in the library, it may be on the web, and I may find it yet, it may be on the site I just linked to, it appears not but it may. Everyone knows the theory but nobody can produce a thing directly from the theory. That is what raises my eyebrows.

The peakers have established an entire religion based on the Nuclear Energy and the Fossil Fuels paper. You might not like it, you can wish for more, but that is the point of origin for their religion. Don't blame me, I think its ridiculous to concoct a religion from it as well, certainly Hubbert didn't say "Go forth and act ignorant in my name" at the end of the paper.

 

[RGR]

Hubbert is not an author to "Peak Oil Theory". At least as far as I have found yet.

You know, I think I have actually seen a video of the old guy, in his later years, responding to a comment where the words "peak oil theory" were actually used?

I don't recall Hubbert ever saying that in a publication though, but who knows, he was quite popular after the US peak in the early 70's, I've been quite surprised at the Utube videos his Priests and acolytes have assembled over the years. Needless to say, when publishing you don't tend to quote odds and ends or small refinements along the way, but the original seminal work. Hubbert's is 1956 as far as Peakers are concerned, and the one most commonly cited in the literature. Some might argue that his 1949 work was the actual origin, but the clincher is the US prediction, from which peaker mythology flows.

 

[Samson]

Thanks. I would be willing to write something up that loosely adheres to and expands upon the Rimini Protocol of 2003.

It might have credibility if Campbell wasn't involved. Got anything from someone who hasn't been claiming peak oil happened since 1989? Deffeyes got started late, does he have a scare mongering routine you can lay down instead?

Acknowledge the problem, then we can find/debate solutions.

Everybody acknowledges the problem, our President was telling us we were running out back in 1977. Didn't you notice? The solution was.....we ignored his geologically ignorant butt.

That is the universal problem isn't it. The Peakers assume that there must be a problem for their solutions to work. It's kind of like medicine, if you have to believe in it for it to work, it ain't medicine. It's a belief system.

No, the "Peakers" (Peckers?) have no solution.

 

[RGR]

No, the "Peakers" (Peckers?) have no solution.

Thats because their religion isn't designed to need one...they want peak oil for the trigger for one version or another of the apocalypse. They don't want to SOLVE anything, it would ruin the Rapture.

 

[mdn2000]

RGR, You got thick skin and a good sense of humor, I think. I am a bit surprised I did not get to you with my jabs. You did piss me off explaining links and books as you can see. Prepare me for what comes next, I eat a post or two and nobody ever knows, nobody knows me, I could care less what comes next of if I am wrong a time or two. It happens, its also a technique, put something out there and see how well I can defend it, I learn a whole lot as I go.

Hubbert, I somehow fat fingered a great post and lost it so this is my second time, its past my bedtime, I am in Brazil on a vacation forced on my by immigrations and me marrying a Brazilian woman. So its late. Real late, I ate the last three hours on Hubbert.

I like the stuff on Population that I quoted from Hubbert. I know so many Liberals that cry the population is to big, the only problem we have ever had, I see that Hubbert was one. Religion I mentioned not so much as I care but it does further show what Hubbert is, that with the population concern, maybe even a reward he got from one of the Rockefeller foundations or college. No time to quote and paste, anyhow the Oil Fortune of Rockefeller also started a foundation one of the great-grandchildren or great-niece ran, it was about population or population control or studies, I should be better equipped to present this and sometimes I take the time but I spent way to much of my day here on USMB.

I also see much of Hubbert's prediction came from someone else's work, which in geology is not a smoking gun, just how things are learned and developed.

I also see Hubbert worked with Kenneth S. Deffeyes which may make me eat my original post you responded to and confirm your rebuttal, take a guess at the point I wanted to use to discredit Hubbert. I am still researching and am leaving the post as bait for others.

 

[RGR]

I also see Hubbert worked with Kenneth S. Deffeyes which may make me eat my original post you responded to and confirm your rebuttal, take a guess at the point I wanted to use to discredit Hubbert. I am still researching and am leaving the post as bait for others.

Hubbert was a scientist, having people trying to blow holes in your ideas comes with the territory. Deffeyes worked in the Shell labs when Hubbert was "da man", certainly his later expertise as a basin and range expert at Princeton wouldn't lead anyone to believe he was an oil and gas expert. Neither does his book, its nice, lots of anecdotal stories, and then lots of bad trendology. Normal for peakers really, as I've said previously, they don't do much geology.

 

[mdn2000]

I also see Hubbert worked with Kenneth S. Deffeyes which may make me eat my original post you responded to and confirm your rebuttal, take a guess at the point I wanted to use to discredit Hubbert. I am still researching and am leaving the post as bait for others.

Hubbert was a scientist, having people trying to blow holes in your ideas comes with the territory. Deffeyes worked in the Shell labs when Hubbert was "da man", certainly his later expertise as a basin and range expert at Princeton wouldn't lead anyone to believe he was an oil and gas expert. Neither does his book, its nice, lots of anecdotal stories, and then lots of bad trendology. Normal for peakers really, as I've said previously, they don't do much geology.

Well that don't help me and its real late now, so to the questions I have been researching, which side of the debate was Hubbert on when it came to the revolution of plate tectonic theory, seems a relationship with Deffeyes means Hubbert may of contributed data or been involved being in his position and with the resources of Shell. There were to distinct camps.

If Hubbert was opposite Deffeyes (seems unlikely?), how loud or vocal was he against plate tectonics, or should I be saying ocean floor spreading. Who knows. Its late.

Seems the little things I read about Hubbert's personality makes him sound like he had a short temper and was stubborn.

If you dismiss geology as not being involved in the theory that punches a few wholes on my idea that the new theory of plate tectonics and ocean floor spreading would effect the work Hubbert did predicting oil reserves. Its noted Hubbert was only accurate about the United States, Hubbert's world prediction was just plain old wrong. I through the "plain old' in there so my post is indisputable. To me only being accurate within the USA means the revolution of plate tectonics and ocean floor spreading invalidates Hubbert's work and the work that proceeded Hubbert.

Hubbert's work was in 1949, the paper I qouted above, so the work began much earlier than his later worker (profound statement), which side of the fence did the scientist that Hubbert used, which side of the ocean spreading debate were they on, how did the later revolution effect there work.

Everything changed in the 60's, ocean floor spreading plate tectonic theory. If I was home I would quote John Mcphee, his work, Annals of the Former World, has the details also an index, which was not in the individual books that were put together to create the latest compilation which is Annals of the Former World. Of course you can blow up my thumbnail of my library and see the book sitting on the shelf. I almost think I read something about Hubbert, wish I had a digital copy.

If Hubbert did not take into account the new theory, all Hubbert's work is faulty, same for the work of the others Hubbert used and needed.

Thats all I got, wish I took the time to find all my answers on my own but sometimes the quick answer is best or a post is made that helps me with my search.

Off to bed. Six hour time difference from California to Rio.

and to add if it needs stating to others who comprehend when the read, Hubbert and all the work came before

 

[RGR]

If Hubbert was opposite Deffeyes (seems unlikely?), how loud or vocal was he against plate tectonics, or should I be saying ocean floor spreading. Who knows. Its late.

I don't know Hubbert's opinion on plate tectonics. Certainly the timing of that idea and its acceptance in the geologic community would have been going on while Hubbert was in his prime.

Seems the little things I read about Hubbert's personality makes him sound like he had a short temper and was stubborn.

Could be. I'm an arrogant prick myself, with a low tolerance for beginners and fools. Maybe thats why peakers naturally rub me the wrong way...besides being religious nutters. We all have our weaknesses.

If Hubbert did not take into account the new theory, all Hubbert's work is faulty, same for the work of the others Hubbert used and needed.

Hubbert's trendology on oil and gas production has nothing to do with plate tectonics. Like I said previously, there isn't any geology in his fitting a line to data and assuming it is predictive in nature.

 

[mdn2000]

If Hubbert was opposite Deffeyes (seems unlikely?), how loud or vocal was he against plate tectonics, or should I be saying ocean floor spreading. Who knows. Its late.

I don't know Hubbert's opinion on plate tectonics. Certainly the timing of that idea and its acceptance in the geologic community would have been going on while Hubbert was in his prime.

Seems the little things I read about Hubbert's personality makes him sound like he had a short temper and was stubborn.

Could be. I'm an arrogant prick myself, with a low tolerance for beginners and fools. Maybe thats why peakers naturally rub me the wrong way...besides being religious nutters. We all have our weaknesses.

If Hubbert did not take into account the new theory, all Hubbert's work is faulty, same for the work of the others Hubbert used and needed.

Hubbert's trendology on oil and gas production has nothing to do with plate tectonics. Like I said previously, there isn't any geology in his fitting a line to data and assuming it is predictive in nature.

Thanks for the response. I am not sure how much work I will put into following up on any of my questions. John McPhee, sounds like you may of read his work, he wrote some great books about geology, traveled with Deffeyes as the geology was explained, books like Basin and Range, Assembling California, a couple others all assembled into on volume.

I also have a nice two volume set on the history of oil, I got sidetracked right after 1850, at the point where I learned refining oil started with plant oils to compete with expensive whale oil. Seems like the technology to make "bio-fuels" is pretty old.

 

[JiggsCasey]

Thats because their religion isn't designed to need one...they want peak oil for the trigger for one version or another of the apocalypse. They don't want to SOLVE anything, it would ruin the Rapture.

It's interesting that you'd run your mouth about "straw man creation" being levied upon you, when in fact your bloviations the past 2-3 pages of this thread completely rely on a made up narrative of some "religion" and endless insults of others' intelligence.

At least you ADMIT you're an "arrogant prick."

Your Frank Drebbin-like "nothing to see here" routine is witty, and helps the dumber members of your camp feel better inside... but, really, it's nothing new, and not remotely accurate. Unfortunately for your camp, your act never stands up to the facts.

So let's go ahead, then, and just cut the crap and get down to brass tacks:

For all your personal insinuation, I'm pretty sure somewhere in there you have a position that there is no peak, though it's hard to say WHAT your point even is, besides being a dick. So, if your vague assertion is accurate, and there is no peak, ... then:

- how/why is the latest IEA annual report finally admitting peak is here after years of denial?
- why would the latest Joint Chiefs' Joint Operating Environment report claim 10 million barrels per day of global shortfall (between expected demand/supply) by 2015?
- why would our own U.S. Dept of Energy, British and German governments, Oxford Univ., Lloyd's of London, ASPO and even the CEO of Total Oil all corroborate that same assessment by the JOE?
- Why are we strip mining western Canada for painfully inefficient tar sands?
- Why would we be drilling to new underwater depth and enormous financial costs?
- Why would we be occupying sovereign nations involved in oil production/transporation for
10+ years at a tremendous financial burden for our already recessed economy?

Are they all in on some conspiracy? If so, for what purpose? If there's "plenty" of the cheap easy to extract light crude, why the fuss?

Gosh, just how ARE these men wrong... or why are they collectively lying to the world? If the latter is true, where did they meet to get their story straight?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUVY2qrEfd8[/ame]

 

[westwall]

Thats because their religion isn't designed to need one...they want peak oil for the trigger for one version or another of the apocalypse. They don't want to SOLVE anything, it would ruin the Rapture.

It's interesting that you'd run your mouth about "straw man creation" being levied upon you, when in fact your bloviations the past 2-3 pages of this thread completely rely on a made up narrative of some "religion" and endless insults of others' intelligence.

At least you ADMIT you're an "arrogant prick."

Your Frank Drebbin-like "nothing to see here" routine is witty, and helps the dumber members of your camp feel better inside... but, really, it's nothing new, and not remotely accurate. Unfortunately for your camp, your act never stands up to the facts.

So let's go ahead, then, and just cut the crap and get down to brass tacks:

For all your personal insinuation, I'm pretty sure somewhere in there you have a position that there is no peak, though it's hard to say WHAT your point even is, besides being a dick. So, if your vague assertion is accurate, and there is no peak, ... then:

- how/why is the latest IEA annual report finally admitting peak is here after years of denial?
- why would the latest Joint Chiefs' Joint Operating Environment report claim 10 million barrels per day of global shortfall (between expected demand/supply) by 2015?
- why would our own U.S. Dept of Energy, British and German governments, Oxford Univ., Lloyd's of London, ASPO and even the CEO of Total Oil all corroborate that same assessment by the JOE?
- Why are we strip mining western Canada for painfully inefficient tar sands?
- Why would we be drilling to new underwater depth and enormous financial costs?
- Why would we be occupying sovereign nations involved in oil production/transporation for
10+ years at a tremendous financial burden for our already recessed economy?

Are they all in on some conspiracy? If so, for what purpose? If there's "plenty" of the cheap easy to extract light crude, why the fuss?

Gosh, just how ARE these men wrong... or why are they collectively lying to the world? If the latter is true, where did they meet to get their story straight?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUVY2qrEfd8[/ame]

Jiggs,

Are RGR's numbers correct? First answer that question.

 

[code1211]

From the IRS:

PROVED RESERVES:Quantities of reserves that, based on geologic and engineering data,appear with reasonable certainty to be recoverable in the future from known oil andgas reserves under existing economic and operating conditions.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-mssp/oilgas.pdf

You can trot out all the definitions you want that spin it the way you desperately need. I don't see your point, as "reasonable certainly" being the key phrase that makes your angle a semantics argument.

Now man-up and provide the definition of "technically recoverable" and/or "estimated" reserves.

Back in the 70's when I was in school and we were just beginning to understand that the USA was not the ivincible that john Wayne led us to believe, the idea of oil shale came to light and do you you know why?

It was because there were only 5 years of reliable oil left in the ground and the oil shale would need to be harvested to make up the shortfall.

Come to find out that the oil compnaies only plan five years into the future for the business planning. My brother bought a whole raft of oil shale stock in which he took a bath.

The oil shale sits there and we can always rest assured that whatever the cost of oil is, it's just low enough to continue to make oil shale a bad investment. Chin up, though, if gas does go to $5.00/gallon, oil shale becomes economically feasable and we have jobs here at home.

Of course, someone will need to get dirty to mine this stuff and the EPA is about to outlaw showers and soap.

 

[RGR]

It's interesting that you'd run your mouth about "straw man creation" being levied upon you, when in fact your bloviations the past 2-3 pages of this thread completely rely on a made up narrative of some "religion" and endless insults of others' intelligence.

I try to focus more on other's incoherence on basic principles of the geosciences. Peakers just specialize in providing plenty of examples. Pick a single application of their geoscience knowledge and I'll show you. Pick a good one though, no point in doing this exercise with some of the penny anty stuff they churn out.

Unfortunately for your camp, your act never stands up to the facts.

What camp? The camp that knew Jimmy was wrong even as he was telling us we were running out? How did that statement "from your side" hold up to the facts?

For all your personal insinuation, I'm pretty sure somewhere in there you have a position that there is no peak, though it's hard to say WHAT your point even is, besides being a dick. So, if your vague assertion is accurate, and there is no peak, ... then:

Certainly I never said there was no peak, certainly I've pointed out more than a few of them, sometimes even more than one in a single area! But I'll play along.

- how/why is the latest IEA annual report finally admitting peak is here after years of denial?

For starters, no one ever denies peak, they just don't think its happening tomorrow. The EIA, Yergin, Lynch, they don't deny it either. Matter of fact, I don't know if ANYONE denies that peak will happen at some point. Some aren't as religious as the zealots like about the timing, is all. I'm not familiar with the IEA's past positions on peaks, or no peaks, and considering their limited manpower, I don't know that any position they have is even relevant, from a geologic perspective. They are admitting peak now? Cool...and how much do they project we'll be producing in...say...2020? Only 60 mbo/d? 50 mbo/d? Or more than our current 85 or so?

- why would the latest Joint Chiefs' Joint Operating Environment report claim 10 million barrels per day of global shortfall (between expected demand/supply) by 2015?

For the same reason President Taft set aside the US petroleum reserves.....before you were born. People have been cheerleading "running out" in various guises for that long.

- why would our own U.S. Dept of Energy, British and German governments, Oxford Univ., Lloyd's of London, ASPO and even the CEO of Total Oil all corroborate that same assessment by the JOE?

Now you will have to be more specific. Please list the official position of the DOE related to peak oil. You do realize they were formed to help handle Jimmy's running out hysteria, right? And how poorly that one went? As far as other government entities, sorry, unless you want to start discussing their geologic survey's opinion on the topic, or the USGS's opinion, more trendology doesn't lead to any better of a conclusion that Jimmy came too.

- Why are we strip mining western Canada for painfully inefficient tar sands?

We aren't. The Canadians are. Ask them, but if I were guessing, I'd say its to make some cash.

- Why would we be drilling to new underwater depth and enormous financial costs?

To make money. What, you think when NOCs exclude the majors from the prime resource areas that they should just give up and die?

- Why would we be occupying sovereign nations involved in oil production/transporation for
10+ years at a tremendous financial burden for our already recessed economy?

Why would we occupy one of them for 10 years and not leave without taking all their oil? And why would we invade the other which has none? Certainly neither of these have anything to do with peak oil either.

Do you know anything at all about this topic, or is the sort of "proof through innuendo" routine common in your peaker congregation?

 

[JiggsCasey]

Why would we occupy one of them for 10 years and not leave without taking all their oil? And why would we invade the other which has none? Certainly neither of these have anything to do with peak oil either.

Read slower next time. I mentioned oil transporting nations. Try absorbing a book since 1995 on the Caspian Basin. We've had designs on the TAPI for decades. The oil/gas kinda has to pass through Afghanistan, ... or at least, that was their plan before Chevron revised their Caspain reserve estimates... you know, downward ... again.

Do you know anything at all about this topic, or is the sort of "proof through innuendo" routine common in your peaker congregation?

LOL... Irony, DUCY? About all you have is innuendo.

You danced around every passage, and ignored the ones you could not spin (the ASPO video). You're not fooling anyone here, Drebbin.

It's hysterical that you would dismiss the conclusions reached by our own Joint Chiefs and U.S. Dept of Energy as part of some vast conspiracy. A conspiracy you can't really bring yourself to flesh out, just that you're sure there is one. Too funny. All these entities are apparently lying and wrong. Gosh, who CAN we believe any more?

Your empty cartridge is most transparent in your shanked punt regarding the IEA question. Claiming unawares, and suggesting the International Energy Agency is somehow "undermanned" is painfully lame, and really exposing your weightless agenda here.

Denying or minimizing global peak production for years, the global energy watch dog finally gave in and acknowledged it all with their latest annual report, "World Energy Outlook 2010"

"Crude oil output reaches an undulating plateau of around 68-69 mb/d, by 2020, but never regains its all-time peak of 70mb/d reached in 2006.”
​

The Oil Drum | IEA World Energy Outlook 2010 Now Out; a Preliminary Look

See the "never regains" part? The entire executive summary explains their conclusion, but there, in one sentence, the IEA has finally waved the white flag and admitted we are AT peak. Not coming soon, but AT peak. Period. ... All that follows after this plateau is the terminal decline of global light crude production, the stuff complex societies are utterly built upon. ... I'll let you scramble to "the Google" now to desperately try and discredit the IEA. Commence epic Fox Newslike spin in 10... 9... 8...

It's the light blue wedge on this graph where the burden falls on your camp. That is the "as yet unknown" capacity required, going forward, just to maintain statis.

You guys don't really know where that gap is going to come from. All you think you know is what you hope will somehow emerge. Perhaps some vast field beneath the North Pole? Yah. ... Meanwhile, the yellow part? Sands and shale? Not nearly enough, and I'm pretty sure you know it.

As to your confusion regarding sands/shale belonging in the equation I put forth.... well, I'd bring be happy to engage in the topic of net energy, and the EROEI terminology that you dickishly pretend we don't understand .... but considering you seemingly can't make the basic distinction between the investment ratio of heavy and light crude, and it's affects on growth, I don't really see a point. You seem rather hopeless, for all your arrogance.

Thus, we get back to the irony of your post above. Do you have any idea what you're talking about at all on this topic?

Oh, and P.S.: Carter wasn't really wrong.... Neither was the 1970s report "Limits to Growth." ... Do better.... Mmm-kay, straw man champion?