Looking forward to Collapse?

[fishertrop]

It would be helpful to have links to all of these analyses.

The latest ASPO graph is usual at the top of each newsletter, eg http://www.peakoil.ie/newsletters/aspo59

Chris Skreboski's latest update is discussed here http://www.energybulletin.net/9872.html

As you probably know, the CERA report is a costly paid-for item but is discussed in detail here http://theoildrum.blogspot.com/2005/08/ ... eport.html

Rembrandt Koppelaar's work is also discussed in depth on TOD - http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2005/9/9/02536/09753

The Trendlines site also does a nice job of plotting EVERY concievable estimate on a single chart - http://trendlines.ca/economic.htm

If I missed any good ones, I'm sure the good people at P/S will post 'em !

[fishertrop]

ASPO refuses to publish the data set which they maintain and from which their predictions are drawn.

At appears that at least some of the ASPO database is published in the Nov newsletter.

[Koba]

Those of you who think that if you are looking forward to the coming collapse are masochists, then you are fooling yourselves. The real masochists are those that want to keep this capitalistic system alive. It is you that wants to keep on raping this world for all it worth, just so you can keep your comfortable lifestyles, so you never have to do a real days work in your life. Am I a masochist for wanting this greedy and selfish system to end? I think not!

I admit it, I want to see the back of this system and I know a few others feel the same way. I am willing to accept the consequences what ever they may be, and I urge you all now that you had better accept and embrace the end of industrial society, because if you don?t you are not going to have much of a future. It is not a matter of if; it is a matter of when so you had better be ready. I am looking forward to a future that is much more back to nature, where I have a much greater say in the way I live my life. But before you say it, I will save you the bother? I know that events may turn out for the worst and I may not get what I want, but I am prepared to take that chance however slim it maybe, because if we are allowed to continue the raping of earth, then we will not have a future at all! I would like to say that the decision is yours, but I would be lying? You have no choice at all, so it really doesn?t matter whether you want to see industrial civilization collapse, or not? it is going to happen whether this winter or in ten years. It is just a matter of time.

That brings me on to my next point. Those of you that think I am a masochist, I just have one question, what good do you think is going to come out of keeping the system we live under going? Maybe, just maybe you think that we can find a green way of raping the earth, to make us feel better about it! Or maybe you think that if we wished upon a star hard enough we could somehow eradicate greed and jealously from the world so capitalism and consumption would be nice, and we could carry on as business as usual! IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!

Those of us that want to see the back of this system are not sick in the head, we just want something better, something real, we are fed-up of this fake society we live in and just want to see the back of it!

[skeptik]

ASPO refuses to publish the data set which they maintain and from which their predictions are drawn.

At appears that at least some of the ASPO database is published in the Nov newsletter.

I assume you mean the large table of figures. That's a summary of the inputs and outputs of their model. What would be good for everybody, I think would be to see a full documentation of how those figures are derived.

For unstance, for Saudi Arabia, as that appears to be of critical interest. For example the future production of Saudi Arabia to 2100 is given as 162 billion barrels. How was that figure arrived at? What is the raw data used at the start of the prrocess and where did it come from? How reliable is that data esimated to be? What are the error margins?

From what ASPO has said it sounds like they do a lot of 'adjustment' based on 'years of experience' Is this adjustment quantifiable? Or is is just a matter of Colin Campbell licking his finger , sticking up to see which way the wind is blowing and then saying 'that feels about right' ?

It worries me that there is no attempt ( unlike in Bakhtiari's WOCAP model - http://www.sfu.ca/~asamsamb/sb.htm ) to calculate (or even guestimate) a level of confidence or range of error. I imagine it must be huge, as even the inputs are at best guestimates. Nodody can measure exactly how much oil there is in an oilfield or exactly how it is 'structured' in the reservoir.

Come on Mr.Campbell, lets have at least one full work through with all the nitty gritty put online, including any 'adjustments' based on your 'judgement' or 'experience' and an explanation of why you thought they were neccessary. Cant be that difficult as it must already exist in some form or another on your computer. It would be useful, Im sure to have your working method out in the open for criticism. If it checks out it would add to ASPO's case. You wouldnt want sceptical people like me to think you are possibly just pulling figures out of thin air, would you?

I think it would be useful at this point to at least try to raise the game from assertion of opinions which cannot be falsified (except by the passage of time - as they often have been with Campbells predictions) to science which can. If you want to do science, everything has to be out in the open and replicable.

[isenhand]

<< Is someone going to tell me that it really is peaking?>>

I think predicting when oil will peak is a bit pointless. The peak itself will be a non-event and you wont notice it has happened to long after the event. If it has peak or will peak in the next 5, 10 or 20years or what ever we still have the same job to do: get ourselves organised so we can do more than just survive.

If anything, the longer it takes to peak the more time we have but I think we should act as if oil has already peaked.

<< I could only tick one alternative. Stupid poll. I would like to tick them all...>>



Well, I went for ? Sometimes.? More because I would like to see the end of our current socioeconomic system and I think we have a good opportunity to make something better but I don?t look forward to the human suffering that could be involved with that.

<< now is the time to do something>>

I think we are doing something. There?s awareness, buying farms and attempts at networking. Still pissing in the ocean but it something. To do more we will need money, I think

[Bozzio]

Come on Mr.Campbell, lets have at least one full work through with all the nitty gritty put online, including any 'adjustments' based on your 'judgement' or 'experience' and an explanation of why you thought they were neccessary.

Skeptic is absolutely right here. Just as we are seeking to further the debate with our politicians (with John Hemming's assistance), we should request transparency over the figures that ASPO uses. We cannot hope to influence the former without empowering ourselves first and that means having all available information to hand. Has anyone approached ASPO in the past on this issue - James maybe?

[DamianB]

I think its unrealistic to expect Colin Cambell to publish his data when its effectively his pension.

From memory, I believe he got it originally from Petroconsultants, who he worked for or owned with Laherre, who used to charge ?1000s for their reports.

For me, the fact that Campbell, Simmons, Skrebrowski, Bakhtiari and Deffryes all predict the peak in the 2005-2010 timeframe is enough.

Whose data/interpretation would you trust the most, Campbell's or the UK govt's when they publish their review?

[Bozzio]

Whose data/interpretation would you trust the most, Campbell's or the UK govt's when they publish their review?

Hi Damian,

Agreed, but then again, we are not the ones who need to be convinced - the man in the street is, and he probably won't be swayed until the government responds accordingly.

I disagree that this is providing Campbell with his pension, his pension fund should be doing that. Working for the companies he did, in the positions he did should have netted him a decent living for the rest of his life. I don't think that Campbell is the sort of person to withold information just for the sake of his own gain.

[skeptik]

I think its unrealistic to expect Colin Cambell to publish his data when its effectively his pension.

Ah..so its his personal property, Not ASPO's, and he's making a living providing reports for sale as per other consultancies? I got he impression he is retired and doing the ASPO thing out of a sense of duty..

Whose data/interpretation would you trust the most, Campbell's or the UK govt's when they publish their review?

Judgement reserved on that question till we see what the Govt comes up with. Though going on past performance of leaning on the IEA, I've no great hope. Not In My Term of Office.

Campbell and ASPO have the right general idea, but I dont trust their projections any more than I trust the governments. Campbell has got it wrong too often in the past. The eternal pessimist.

[SherryMayo]

Campbell uses proprietry IHS/petroconsultants data which is probably the reason it can't be released (usually you have to pay for access to it).
Laharrere uses the same data source but comes up with a 2015 peak date using his creaming curve methods I recall - so a fair bit of the variation is in the methodology/assumptions.

Koppelaar of the Netherlands ASPO affiliate has done an estimate with publicly available data (eg similar to Skrebowski's megaprojects list plus a few additions) which puts peak at 2015.
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2005/9/9/02536/09753
I believe this data is available as a spreadsheet to play with. However I think we're getting to a point where these kinds of estimates are converging - Even senior people from IEA, BP and Exxon have all talked about a non-opec peak within 10 years.

[skeptik]

Campbell uses proprietry IHS/petroconsultants data which is probably the reason it can't be released (usually you have to pay for access to it).

Thats not the impression I get from what ASPO say about it in their newsletter. Neither the defunct Petroconsultants or IHS are mentioned.

From the current newsletter:(my emphasis)

"635. Database
The database and depletion model, upon which the graph and table on Page 2 are based are at present maintained by ASPO IRELAND (www.peakoil.ie). It endeavours to unravel the ambiguous definitions, and misunderstood reporting practices, and is compiled from individual country assessments (see last page).. Most of the numbers deserve generous rounding, but nevertheless form a useful basis for general planning."

I read that as meaning ASPO Ireland (I.e. Campbell) does an individual country assesment including calculating the projected Hubbert curve for that country, and then uses that data as input for the world as a whole. The source of the data used for the individual country assessment is not mentioned.

I see no reason why they should not release a thorough work through including all sources for at least one country so that we can see what is going on.

I would be interested to know what "unravel the ambiguous definitions, and misunderstood reporting practices" actually means in practice. - would Campbell use those words in relation to Petroconsultants/IHS data which would have had all the 'inconsistencies' already smoothed out of it? Accuracy and consistency is presumably what one is paying a huge ammount of money for in IHS data - and a certain ammount of predigestion and analysis..

Sounds more like he's compiling info from multiple public sources and having to 'adjust' them himself to achieve consistency from one company / country to another .

Koppelaar and Skrebowski seem to be somewhat more forthcoming than ASPO. From what Ive read it would more or less be possible for somebody with the neccessary stomach for it and the knowledge of the subject to replicate and/or check their results. I've no knowledge of how Deffeyes came up with Thanksgiving day as his global conventional peak!

there's still a pretty wide spread - 'Global peak oil now' from Deffeyes to 'sometime in the next ten years' for Non-Opec peak by the others you mentioned.

[mikepepler]

Campbell uses proprietry IHS/petroconsultants data which is probably the reason it can't be released (usually you have to pay for access to it).

If they do use it, then you are correct. Someone doing my MSc last year did a project on peak oil, and had access to the IHS database. Their dissertation is now restricted access, and they can only show bits of it with key numbers removed from the graphs. Likewise, Roger Bentley gave usa lecture on peak oil last week, and he used the datavbase. He showed us stuff on the projector, but the copy of the presentation made available to us has some of the figures removed.

[SherryMayo]

Koppelaar and Skrebowski chose to use publicly available info for their analyses which is great in terms of peer review, however, Laherrere in some of his papers gives some pretty convincing reasons for using the IHS database. I can understand the concerns about peer review etc but petroleum data isn't like other scientific data, where you can just go an measure it more accurately if it isn't good enough for your purposes - it is mired in secrecy, geopolitics, commercial concerns etc which all give the major players incentives to be economical with the truth (in public at least).


skeptik: There are quite a few references to Campbell's use of the IHS data on the web. In Zittel's critique of the USGS figures he notes that USGS and Campbell are using the same database. Campbell and Laherrere had access to this database in the past - I don't know if they have access to updates.

[skeptik]

skeptik: There are quite a few references to Campbell's use of the IHS data on the web. In Zittel's critique of the USGS figures he notes that USGS and Campbell are using the same database. Campbell and Laherrere had access to this database in the past - I don't know if they have access to updates.

From the way Campbell words it, my guess is not. They probably have an old set which they are updating themselves from publicly available data... well thats how I read it. Campbell and Laherrere are after all OAPs and though no doubt comfotably off, not made of money....

Fair enough. In the presence of sad data (people cant even agree on what the terminology means - when is a proven reserve not a proven reserve?), mad data (cloud cuckoo absurdist growth projections) , non-existent (poor or incomplete surveys to cut cost in a low price environment) , and secret data (everybody , countries and companies have many good reasons to lie - and its difficult to check what really is thousands of feet below land surface) I dont think its worth worrying about the endless consideration of the details that goes into the calculation of future production, and all the agonising about when the peak oil is going to happen. It really is just a waste of mental energy. All the predictions are just a crock of **it as far as I can see. Guesses based upon guesses based upon guesses. Like trying to project the weather for Christmas day based upon a weather trend in June...

Better to concentrate on what policies should be put into operation ASAP, both nationally and personally, on the assumption that peak might happen sooner rather than later - just apply the precautionary principle, as it is too important an issue not to.