RGR, that all makes sense, I can see that people with an agenda might use PO as a vehicle.
But do you have an opinion on how things will play out, regarding international/domestic politics, finance, industry, etc? Or do you prefer to wait and see?
Oil Production: Will the Peak Hold?
Moderator: Peak Moderation
-
mikepepler
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3096
- Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
- Location: Rye, UK
- Contact:
Good post RGR.
I've wandered across to LATOC a few times and even post there once in a wonder. I did notice some time ago a rather heavy handed approach to your posts and I tend to agree that there are many forums on the net where only one opinion is acceptable and the group rush to defend it and beat off the intruding "different" opinion. (I have even found this on a horse forum!)
I also think that when arguing on the net positions tend to become polarised, and "the other" group are classified as either extreme black or white with no shades of grey.
To be honest your earlier posts in this thread seemed to classify everyone here as the same ultimate doomer end of the world types that you found on other PO forums - and at first I thought that your opinion was more extreme to the "world will never change" outlook. Yet as I have followed this thread with interest, I notice that there are more and more areas of agreement.
Thankyou for taking the time to talk here. I would admit to having some "doomer" ideas and I do have concerns for the long term outlook for humanity. (It is my view we are in population overshoot). However your posts have given me considerable hope that any transition to a future alternative world may indeed not be so traumatic.
Yet Kunstler and the like (even if extreme) do have a purpose. Many folk have no notion of reducing their consumption, nor any idea that one day they may have to. We are heavily dependant on oil for our lifestyles and this can not go on indefinitely . . . and some times a message must be overstated to be noticed.
Again thankyou for your input here. I have appreciated your views and the debate amongst others on here in response to them.
Sally
I've wandered across to LATOC a few times and even post there once in a wonder. I did notice some time ago a rather heavy handed approach to your posts and I tend to agree that there are many forums on the net where only one opinion is acceptable and the group rush to defend it and beat off the intruding "different" opinion. (I have even found this on a horse forum!)
I also think that when arguing on the net positions tend to become polarised, and "the other" group are classified as either extreme black or white with no shades of grey.
To be honest your earlier posts in this thread seemed to classify everyone here as the same ultimate doomer end of the world types that you found on other PO forums - and at first I thought that your opinion was more extreme to the "world will never change" outlook. Yet as I have followed this thread with interest, I notice that there are more and more areas of agreement.
Thankyou for taking the time to talk here. I would admit to having some "doomer" ideas and I do have concerns for the long term outlook for humanity. (It is my view we are in population overshoot). However your posts have given me considerable hope that any transition to a future alternative world may indeed not be so traumatic.
Yet Kunstler and the like (even if extreme) do have a purpose. Many folk have no notion of reducing their consumption, nor any idea that one day they may have to. We are heavily dependant on oil for our lifestyles and this can not go on indefinitely . . . and some times a message must be overstated to be noticed.
Again thankyou for your input here. I have appreciated your views and the debate amongst others on here in response to them.
Sally
RGR, you make fair points and I understand where you are coming from. However you shouldn't let the "doomers" influence you too much. Many are plain crazy.
You're right to highlight Campbell, Deffeyes, Laherrere. I'd also add Hubbert, Baktiari and Al-Husseini to the list. In these people we have lifetimes of experience and prominent positions at prestigious institutions. If it were only Rupert, Heinberg, Kuntsler, Simmons etc. I'd be pretty happy to dismiss peak oil as yet another tinfoil-hat conspiracy. The fact that the former stakeholders are prominent in this debate validates the potential existence of the problem.
Why can't you evaluate peak oil in absence of the doomers? Simply ignore them. They shouldn't have any bearing on the debate.
You're right to highlight Campbell, Deffeyes, Laherrere. I'd also add Hubbert, Baktiari and Al-Husseini to the list. In these people we have lifetimes of experience and prominent positions at prestigious institutions. If it were only Rupert, Heinberg, Kuntsler, Simmons etc. I'd be pretty happy to dismiss peak oil as yet another tinfoil-hat conspiracy. The fact that the former stakeholders are prominent in this debate validates the potential existence of the problem.
Why can't you evaluate peak oil in absence of the doomers? Simply ignore them. They shouldn't have any bearing on the debate.
RGR - interesting post. Thanks for that.
Everyone commentating on, or just learning about, peak oil brings their own "agenda", I'd prefer the word worldview, to it. None of us are exempt from this, doomers, greens, Republicans, socialists, 911 conspiracy/truthouters etc.
I don't think that it is possible to debate the implications and the options to respond to peak oil purely in purely in terms of the evidence base. Despite your admirable adherence to the scientific method RGR, even you will bring your own belief-system and subjective worldiew to the questions of implications and possible responses. While these two encompass a lot of empirical data that can be analysed using scientific method, it also contains elements which are in the realm of conjecture and opinion and values.
Everyone commentating on, or just learning about, peak oil brings their own "agenda", I'd prefer the word worldview, to it. None of us are exempt from this, doomers, greens, Republicans, socialists, 911 conspiracy/truthouters etc.
I don't think that it is possible to debate the implications and the options to respond to peak oil purely in purely in terms of the evidence base. Despite your admirable adherence to the scientific method RGR, even you will bring your own belief-system and subjective worldiew to the questions of implications and possible responses. While these two encompass a lot of empirical data that can be analysed using scientific method, it also contains elements which are in the realm of conjecture and opinion and values.
-
RGR
-
RGR
-
RGR
-
RGR
Peak oil is ALL about the consequences ( real or imagined )Adam1 wrote: I don't think that it is possible to debate the implications and the options to respond to peak oil purely in purely in terms of the evidence base. Despite your admirable adherence to the scientific method RGR, even you will bring your own belief-system and subjective worldiew to the questions of implications and possible responses. While these two encompass a lot of empirical data that can be analysed using scientific method, it also contains elements which are in the realm of conjecture and opinion and values.
Last edited by RGR on 30 Jul 2011, 02:47, edited 1 time in total.
-
Totally_Baffled
- Posts: 2824
- Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
- Location: Hampshire
RGR
I too would like to thank you for your contribution to this forum! We have exchanged a few PM's via PO .com.
I am interested on your view of something that gets me a bit worried from time to time. This is the "export land model" that they discuss on TOD.
I am an amateur in these oil matters, so maybe I am missing something in the numbers - but even if you assume very low decline rates post peak(<2%), the export land model has the potential to make post peak supply to all net importing countries decline very quickly.
For example - lets take Russia and SA.
Lets assume they both maintain 10mpd for the next 30 years.
BUT - their internal consumption is growing at 9% per annum. So they go from 7.5mpd of exports each per year to 3.5mpd each in 10 years and down to nil in 16 years!
Throw in 2% decline rates for production and this comes down to 8 years and 13 years *gulp*!
I guess the counter to this is that internal consumption wont continue to climb at 9% given high prices (cost of subsidy of gasoline etc), and they fact these countries rely on exports revenues from oil to survive?
Or, the fall out from economic dislocation will slow internal consumption?
Dont know - its a tough call.
I too would like to thank you for your contribution to this forum! We have exchanged a few PM's via PO .com.
I am interested on your view of something that gets me a bit worried from time to time. This is the "export land model" that they discuss on TOD.
I am an amateur in these oil matters, so maybe I am missing something in the numbers - but even if you assume very low decline rates post peak(<2%), the export land model has the potential to make post peak supply to all net importing countries decline very quickly.
For example - lets take Russia and SA.
Lets assume they both maintain 10mpd for the next 30 years.
BUT - their internal consumption is growing at 9% per annum. So they go from 7.5mpd of exports each per year to 3.5mpd each in 10 years and down to nil in 16 years!
Throw in 2% decline rates for production and this comes down to 8 years and 13 years *gulp*!
I guess the counter to this is that internal consumption wont continue to climb at 9% given high prices (cost of subsidy of gasoline etc), and they fact these countries rely on exports revenues from oil to survive?
Or, the fall out from economic dislocation will slow internal consumption?
Dont know - its a tough call.
TB
Peak oil? ahhh smeg.....
Peak oil? ahhh smeg.....
rgr I dont know how old you are but people knew the world was going to peak in the 1960s especially after america peaked ...hmmm why did america spend the next 40 years building urban sprawl I mean people knew back then it wasnt a sensible thing to do .
I dont see much evidence that things are going to change , I think its far more likely that people will stay in denial and you will see anger and crazy behavior .
resource wars whats iraq all about why are there troops in saudi and most other places where theres oil
maybe our experience of how people really react is different in some way
I dont see much evidence that things are going to change , I think its far more likely that people will stay in denial and you will see anger and crazy behavior .
resource wars whats iraq all about why are there troops in saudi and most other places where theres oil
maybe our experience of how people really react is different in some way
"What causes more suffering in the world than the stupidity of the compassionate?"Friedrich Nietzsche
optimism is cowardice oswald spengler
optimism is cowardice oswald spengler
I haven't visited the LATOC forums more than once or twice. I got put off by all the survivalist stuff and the things people were talking about didn't really relate to my life here in the UK. I think that part of the "hysteria" is cultural. Americans are on average more risk averse/security fixated than the Brits and many other Europeans ("on average" - I know I'm stereotyping here).RGR wrote:Peak oil is ALL about the consequences ( real or imagined ) people want to assign to the event, and the leap from empirical fact ( oil will peak sometime ) to consequences ( none, Doom, cannibalism, wars ) most definitely involves a large subjective component.
The ability of people to defend that link ( from PO as a trigger to their hysterical arm waving scenario ) is what I find most fascinating nowadays.
Most simply don't. They haven't thought their position through at all, but the ones that have, and can build their objective/subjective link, those are the interesting people to talk to and argue with.
That said, I think a war, which affects people in the west as much as WW2 affected the UK, is a definite possibility in the next decade or two. Likewise, if we continue to try to sustain the unsustainable, a doomer-style hard collapse is also a definite probability - although I think this is a lot less likely and possibly further away in the future. I hope and believe that this probably won't happen because I do think that our changed circumstances post-peak will allow new ideas and responses to be adopted. It may be that a major war or other similar discontinuity will be the trigger for the kind of changes we will need to avoid a hard collapse.
So let me get this right RGR, as maybe I have been misunderstanding your posts.....
You don't deny Peak Oil may already or may be about to occur (next few years), but you don't think this will be the end of the world?
- Neither does anybody here.
You think that the downslope of the oil production curve will be handled by pricing and the normal market mechanisms, causing the human race to gracefully switch (with a bit of screaming and shouting) from fossil fuels to renewable energy and the world as we know it will more or less continue as normal.
- Here I will have to disagree and side with Hirsch's conclusions.
Nothing out of the ordinary has occured yet due to the Peak Oil situation.
- Again I am afraid I have to disagree, your country and my country together decided to invade Iraq. For one reason, security of oil supply.... as admitted by Greenspan in his auto-biography. I don't know the number of people who have died as a result, but it is well into the hundreds of thousands. I don't consider this normal, although considering America's Foreign Policy over the last 50 years, maybe it is.
Apologies for putting words into your mouth, but I feel we need to clarify what you are saying. Feel free to correct my understanding of your position.
And thanks for your contributions - it takes guts to argue against what the "group" think, although I trust you are not argueing just for the sake of it.
You don't deny Peak Oil may already or may be about to occur (next few years), but you don't think this will be the end of the world?
- Neither does anybody here.
You think that the downslope of the oil production curve will be handled by pricing and the normal market mechanisms, causing the human race to gracefully switch (with a bit of screaming and shouting) from fossil fuels to renewable energy and the world as we know it will more or less continue as normal.
- Here I will have to disagree and side with Hirsch's conclusions.
Nothing out of the ordinary has occured yet due to the Peak Oil situation.
- Again I am afraid I have to disagree, your country and my country together decided to invade Iraq. For one reason, security of oil supply.... as admitted by Greenspan in his auto-biography. I don't know the number of people who have died as a result, but it is well into the hundreds of thousands. I don't consider this normal, although considering America's Foreign Policy over the last 50 years, maybe it is.
Apologies for putting words into your mouth, but I feel we need to clarify what you are saying. Feel free to correct my understanding of your position.
And thanks for your contributions - it takes guts to argue against what the "group" think, although I trust you are not argueing just for the sake of it.
Real money is gold and silver