Open Question to Powerswitchers From RGR. Input requested.

[RGR]

[quote="clv101"]
Seriously, RGR,

[RGR]

[quote="the mad cyclist"], but does he

[Catweazle]

Seriously, RGR, the poor response you've received is mostly a function of your attitude. It's a shame.

My attitude causes peak posters to suddenly wilt when it comes to understanding or enunciating the science behind their favorite peak oil angle?

Funny how they seem all brave and talkative when the sport is just piling on the heretics though, isn't it?

Perhaps, just perhaps, people have got thoroughly fed-up with your deliberate misunderstandings and straw-man arguments.

Seriously, do you expect anyone to bother to post reams of data just so that you can say, again, that there's loads of oil but we're going to have to pay a lot more for it ?

We know there's loads of oil in shale, sand and other unconventional reserves, it's not news to us, and we know that we'll have to pay a lot more for it when the easy stuff has gone.

We don't need you to keep repeating it.

If you want just one thing to look at, then I suggest you look at the production rates when the price was $100+ . When the producers would have loved to produce loads of oil, to sell at this price and to maintain the boom for as long as possible, what happened ? They couldn't keep up with demand, prices rose even further, demand was destroyed and the price plummetted.

What's your take on this ?

Try to leave your enormous ego in his box when you answer, and you might even engage in a sensible debate.

[the mad cyclist]

, but does he honestly think he can persuade members of this forum, to write an essay on the science behind peak oil, just so he can mark it 1 to 10.

What are you talking about? I asked for no such essay.

Fair point. Slight exaggeration to make a point, but I’m sure you knew what I meant.

You say you’ve asked real scientists and geoscience experts but have you also asked any real mathematicians? The, life is just going carry on as before articles I have read, either miss out the maths completely, or leave out one or more variables.

[Totally_Baffled]

Perhaps, just perhaps, people have got thoroughly fed-up with your deliberate misunderstandings and straw-man arguments.

+1

This is where I am at too with RGR, such a shame - because he does make some legitimate points and challenges.

[snow hope]

I deliberately haven't read this thread because of the author, but I have now clicked on the last page in a moment of idleness and can see that I made the correct decision.

"Deliberate misunderstandings" seems to cover it. The only way to deal with the troll is to stop engaging.... he may get the hint then. and if he doesn't, he can just talk to himself.....

[RogerCO]

Go back and count the number of people who even attempted to answer the question and then ask yourself, what explains such a lack as well as the concept that they don't KNOW the science behind their pet theory?

Being more engaged in the real world these days (and very grateful to powerswitch for a lot of interesting ideas, information and discussion over the past 5 years), I came to this thread complete to date and was struck by two things.
Firstly RGR asked a very reasonable and sensible question to start with.
Secondly there have been a few sensible replies and an awful lot of slightly rude stuff which reflects a little badly on this community (the quote above is also a fair question for a different thread if we want to do a bit of navel gazing).

I can't really add to the few sensible comments early on taking the question at face value.

The fundamentals are possibly thermodynamics of an effectively closed system. (you can't win you can only break even, you can only break even at absolute zero, you cant reach absolute zero).

I can't comment on the geology (but you have other experts for that) but I understand that the resource is finite (although it may be much larger than we think)

I think the peak oil concern comes from the interaction of geology, economics and socio-political effects. Unfortunately only the first of these is a proper science, so it is always going to be a (worthwhile) challenge producing a science paper on PO.
This is compounded by the fact that the PO view tends to accept an unconventional view of economics (exponential growth cannot continue for ever in a finite country/planet/cosmos - conventional economists simply ignore this) and also that socio-political science is a barely formed discipline that needs to include chunks of psychology, sociology and political studies each of which is itself barely scientific.

Getting a paper on this stuff peer reviewed would be especially challenging - good luck! It'll certainly be worth doing.

[RGR]

Perhaps, just perhaps, people have got thoroughly fed-up with your deliberate misunderstandings and straw-man arguments.

[RGR]

You say you’ve asked real scientists and geoscience experts but have you also asked any real mathematicians?

[RGR]

The fundamentals are possibly thermodynamics of an effectively closed system. (you can't win you can only break even, you can only break even at absolute zero, you cant reach absolute zero).

[Catweazle]

Perhaps, just perhaps, people have got thoroughly fed-up with your deliberate misunderstandings and straw-man arguments.

It is not a "deliberate misunderstanding" to note that the answer to 2+2 is not 5, no matter how many people might believe it to be true.

Whenever someone poses a question that needs such an answer you say 6, then claim the question was 3+3 . For a long time many members have been using the term Peak Oil to mean "peak affordable oil". As I wrote earlier, we know there is loads of unconventional reserve, but it won't help us if it costs a fortune. You know this.

And certainly the question I asked was not a strawman.

Seriously, do you expect anyone to bother to post reams of data just so that you can say, again, that there's loads of oil but we're going to have to pay a lot more for it ?

I did not ask for reams of data. And certainly would not confuse it with an opinion on the scientific basis for peak should anyone present any.

Now who did you say was deliberately misunderstanding?

If you want just one thing to look at, then I suggest you look at the production rates when the price was $100+ .

Now who is building a strawman? Are you seriously suggesting that the relationship between a single price, and a single production rate when that price was in effect, is somehow, in and of itself, a scientific basis for EITHER?

Now, if you had said, "If you want one thing (science thing) to look at I suggest you study the relationship between price and production rates down through the history of oil production" at least then I could assume you read the original question and weren't pulling a standard peaker move of cherry picking some microscopic timeframe to build a strawman on, or changing basic data to hide the inconsistencies of the theory itself.

We ( the people ) don't have access to the true figures regarding reserves and flow rates, we ( and you ) only have what the producers give us. As such we can only guess at the truth based on how they respond to market conditions. For example, if I read that an oil producing country wants to reduce its output to leave enough oil for future generations I can make some reasonable guesses. Firstly, I would guess that they have a finite amount of oil, it's obvious. Secondly I would guess that they think the oil they have will be worth at least as much as it is now, plus whatever interest they could make on the money raised if they sold it now. Thirdly, I would guess that they don't believe that there will be a reduction in price due to unconventional reserves coming online. Fourth, I quess that they don't expect green technology to reduce demand. All in, it looks to me that, based on these guesses, oil isn't going to get any cheaper long-term. You could say that cheap oil has peaked.

Of course, this is all guesswork, I don't have the real figures and the oil producers could in fact be wanting to preserve oil stocks for entirely noble reasons, perhaps to encourage green technology to take over. I think this is unlikely.

Of course, one or two producers wanting to save some for later, being able to afford to do so, isn't the whole market. I'm sure that many of them would have sold their entire reserves at $130 if they could have, the production graph shows that in fact they tried to, but couldn't keep up with demand - the price spiked, demand was temporarily destroyed and next thing it's at $35. I'm going to guess they didn't want that to happen, much better for them to have produced the extra when it was needed and kept the price hovering above $100. But they didn't, maybe they couldn't ?

When the producers would have loved to produce loads of oil, to sell at this price and to maintain the boom for as long as possible, what happened ? They couldn't keep up with demand, prices rose even further, demand was destroyed and the price plummetted.

What's your take on this ?

Answer my question first. Its much easier than yours, and certainly isn't of the "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" variety.

Try to leave your enormous ego in his box when you answer, and you might even engage in a sensible debate.

Sensible debate? Now I know you are just screwing with me, this place determined some time ago that delicate Brit sensibilities must be protected from concepts which offend forum groupthink.

The only groupthink on here for years is that things are going to get tougher, and guess what ? They did.

I asked special permission from TPTB to ask a specific question. You wouldn't seriously be suggesting that a place which censored the very types of QUESTIONS I ask could handle the first page of a dissertation sized ANSWER on the topic? You have got to be kidding....

I look forward to seeing your dissertation, although I suspect it will answer the wrong questions.

EDIT to add some more.

Why not have a look around the site for a while, see what the concerns and preparations really are. I think you'll find people making sensible decisions and investments to preserve a decent standard of living in what could be troubled times. That's what the Powerswitchers are really about, reducing future problems with intelligent preparations today.

You'll also find that a lot of people don't actually care how much oil there is left, they just want to stop using fossil fuels for the sake of everyone who lives on this planet.

[Lord Beria3]

I haven't ever seen an economist say that they believe in eternal exponential growth, matter of fact I would bet they are the same group who invented the definition for the term "recession" to directly contradict such an idea. And there is more than a little flexibility in what economics does do, such as recognize substitution, which have proven in the past to be a pretty reasonable concepts. Some argue that relative scarcity is actually the cause for the sort of ingenuity which, when activated, turns a geologic waste product of little or no use, like crude, into a global fuel.

Good point, substitution is definately under-estimated and scarcity could lead to the kind of advances in bio/nano/space/quantum developments which could lead us out of the 'limits of growth' problem. People who have already written the script (for the future) are wrong in my opinion.

There are too many unknowns going forward. My hunch is that in the medium term the transition will broadly go along with the predictions of many here (recessions, higher commodity prices, socio-economic problems, trade wars, actual wars, shortages etc) but longer term I am cautiously optimistic regarding the emergence of new technologies to shift our economy away from fossil fuels by mid-century.

[RGR]

[RGR]

[Lord Beria3]

RGR - I actually sympathise with you, I don't think you are a troll and your critique of the group thinking here is spot on. I myself have suffered from that.

Your focus on the science is worthy in itself, but you ignore the fact that a peak in oil will include factors like investment, geopolitics which are not so easy to reduce to science.

Anybody who states that you claim is a amateur, but you are in the wrong there.

Regarding the science or geology of it, I would have thought that Hubberts prediction of American oil peaking (which he got spot on) is evidence enough of the science behind the peak oil theory. Moreover, the regulatory, political and investment environment in the US was very good in terms of using top technology to extract as much oil out of the fields after the peak.

In that regard, US oil production did'nt crash but gradually declined. However, it never surpassed the peak predicted by Hubbert.

Hubbert made a global prediction on peaking oil which due to the lack of information in the Middle East is inherently a tricky area but his analysis that we have or we will peak in global oil production within the next decade is pretty reasonable to me.

The science, as underpinned by Hubberts american predictions is reasonably accurate and I see no reason why the global peak is radically different.

In terms of the post-peak world, I agree with you that there are a lot of assumptions regarding what will happen. I don't think you can scientifically predict what will happen as we haven't seen a global peak in oil before - but historically, for example the transition from wood to coal, coal to oil, that energy transitions take around 50 years and logically, with oil peaking, there will be a 50 year transition before a post-fossil fuels energy source goes mainstream around mid-century.

People here dismiss this possibility, which I disagree with, as it goes against the grain of history, if not science.