At what point of depletion will it need to be before it gets

[RGR]

It's also annoyingly 'nit picking' when we all know what is meant by the statement

I don't tend to nitpick things which are coherent.

[RGR]

Regarding the phrase 'running out' or 'starting to run out' . . .

Although yes of course technically we have been 'running out' ever since we first started extracting the stuff, the commonly interpreted meaning of the phrase is that the long-term view is that there is less available than actually required.

[Susukino]

Here I would simply venture that ignorance is ignorance. I imagine some people still think the world is flat....do their "impressions" on the topic matter in the least?

Ah, so expectations - like 'impressions', a purely psychological issue - have no role in setting prices? Is this what you're claiming? If not, what are you trying to say?

Suss

[Andy Hunt]

It strikes me as physically impossible for supply to ever be outstripped by consumption because....it must first be produced in order to be used. I certainly hope that a commonly held view isn't so silly as to be a physical impossibility.

I don't recall anyone suggesting anything of the sort . . . however, what is consumed and what is in demand may not be the same. If you have a car sitting in the driveway which you can't afford to run, there is an unsatisfied demand there, but no consumption. It's not that you don't want the petrol, it's that you can't afford it. If you don't own a car in the first place, there's no consumption but no demand for petrol either.

This is a prime example of where the strict use of technical terms actually loses the sense and meaning of what is being talked about. Your equation of 'demand' with 'consumption' misses out the critical fact - that the commodity in question is wanted, but not provided. And that lack of satisfaction can lead to events in the real world which are often outside the realm of economic theory. "Let them eat cake," she said. But her economic model failed, there was no substitute for bread, and she got her head chopped off.

I would simply venture that ignorance is ignorance. I imagine some people still think the world is flat....do their "impressions" on the topic matter in the least?

They do if their beliefs guide the actions of large numbers of people . . .

I think people use the phrase 'running out' to mean, 'we had better start looking for a replacement or alternative because the end is in sight'.

Then why do they say running out? Just to scare people for fun?

Maybe to convey a sense of urgency which they feel might be currently lacking?

I understand your point, but I'm not sure its relevant to the original idea.

My point was really about 'speaking to people in their own language' - of course in a technical discussion it's absolutely essential to know exactly what is meant by a phrase, I agree with you 100% on that one. My point was really that in order for understanding of a subject to progress beyond the domain of a few experts into the public consciousness, the message must be condensed into terms which are generally understood.

Hence, when speaking to Joe Public, it's not necessarily very helpful to say, "Since the permanent depletion of oil reserves which began late in the 19th century has now progressed to a point where medium-term future consumption of transport fuels and other higher grade distillates may be constrained by the resultant but expected limitation in rates of extraction of the raw petroleum resource, it now begins to be necessary to consider new options and technologies for the propagation of sustainable transport solutions or models of social organisation which result in lower or declining consumption requirements."

It may however be more helpful to say, "oil is beginning to run out, so we need to either find alternative ways of powering our transport, or change our lives so that we don't need to use transport as much".

[Susukino]

I would simply venture that ignorance is ignorance. I imagine some people still think the world is flat....do their "impressions" on the topic matter in the least?

They do if their beliefs guide the actions of large numbers of people . . .

Exactly. Facts have meaning only when they are apprehended by people, and people exist in a social milieu in which facts have to compete with other ideas. These other ideas may not have a factual base but they often speak to people far more strongly. If society is to progress then those other 'non-factual' ideas - religion being an example - need to be directed to work in a positive fashion. To achieve that we need to engage with those who propound these ideas and understand the feelings of those who believe them.

This is why the likes of Christopher Hitchens contribute nothing to the world. He sees no value in organised religion so he expends his (considerable) energy in excoriating it, but this is not productive in a world where 90% of the population believes in some kind of deity. The facts may be on Hitchens side; most people do not care. (And let's not even bother getting into the issue that religious belief is one of the few factors that seems to contribute to long-term individual happiness.)

I would guess that large numbers of engineers probably fail to understand why the evolution vs intelligent design debate even exists and for similar reasons. After all, evolution is a fact, right, so it should all be self-evident? Meanwhile creationists are assaulting classrooms in middle America...

But then that's the classical engineering view of the world. Accept what can be empirically observed and measured; ignore or deprecate anything that that we cannot either measure or explain. Unfortunately the latter category currently accounts for roughly 90% of human experience.

<rant mode off>

Suss

[RGR]

[RGR]

I would guess that large numbers of engineers probably fail to understand why the evolution vs intelligent design debate even exists and for similar reasons. After all, evolution is a fact, right, so it should all be self-evident? Meanwhile creationists are assaulting classrooms in middle America...

[J. R. Ewing]

OK. I'll admit to being dumb here

"Permanent Decline" not "Permanent Depletetion" is what I wanted to put.

Sorry!!!

[RGR]

OK. I'll admit to being dumb here

"Permanent Decline" not "Permanent Depletetion" is what I wanted to put.

Sorry!!!

[Keela]

So we'll have a "bumpy descent" as well as a "bumpy plateau"?

I assume ascent was also "bumpy".

Ahhhhh looks like we're in for a bumpy ride!

[biffvernon]

could you venture how it might be possible to tell a permanent decline from a non-permanent decline?

"It's the geology, stupid", to misquote someone famous. The North Sea production had a non-permanent decline after the Piper-Alpha disaster, now it is in permanent decline.

[RGR]

The North Sea production had a non-permanent decline after the Piper-Alpha disaster, now it is in permanent decline.

[dudley]

could you venture how it might be possible to tell a permanent decline from a non-permanent decline?

"It's the geology, stupid", to misquote someone famous. The North Sea production had a non-permanent decline after the Piper-Alpha disaster, now it is in permanent decline.

Hubberts model isn't dominated by geology as much as it is by the economics, regulation, availability and technology of development. Throw in demand trends for a kicker, and geology isn't really much beyond the total size of resource available, the shape of its development is dictated by everything else.

In the case of the US specifically, its even shape in the upslope was dictated by the Texas RR Commission trying to stabilize price against demand, most certainly NOT a geologic parameter.

Hubbert himself recognized this by the 80's, reading between the lines on some of his conversations which I have seen on the w w w.

I should mention before everyone gets bent out of shape that my view is quite well established in the earth science community among those who have actually studied this for a living, and understand more of its components than some nice, pulled out of thin air bell shaped curve.

interesting ... could you post some references with views of this kind (among earth scientists, not economicsts)?

The peak of the curve could be determined by geology even if the shape of the curve is influenced by nongeological factors. I think geology must play a significant role in the shapes of actual depletion curves.

[J. R. Ewing]

OK. I'll admit to being dumb here

"Permanent Decline" not "Permanent Depletetion" is what I wanted to put.

Sorry!!!

No problem. Now that we've cleared that up, could you venture how it might be possible to tell a permanent decline from a non-permanent decline?

For example, the US is generally accepted to have entered a "permanent decline" mode somewhere around 1970-71. But the US hasn't been declining that entire time, at some points in time the decline was halted for years. Other times, domestic production went back up, like it did in 2007.

How do we know at any non-declining point that, in fact, "permanent" decline has been halted, and production will now experience an "incline" of some sort and duration?

We will of course know all of this after all recoverable oil has been produced, but part of the ongoing debate centers on us not having enough time to wait that long to answer the question at hand.

Yes but it never produced more than it did back in 1970-71 so that makes it a permanent decline, despite hikes here and there.

[RGR]

interesting ... could you post some references with views of this kind (among earth scientists, not economicsts)?