Newest Peak, 2008

DominicJ · Post by **DominicJ** » 16 Mar 2009, 11:18

Totally_Baffled wrote:

Simmons must be a little embarassed about his comments in 2004 regarding US natural gas too!

Thats my biggest problem with the people who are so anti RGR, they arent.
They dont see the need to explain why they've been wrong a dozen times already, and why they're right this time.
They just make and/or propagate ever more hysterical predictions.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 16 Mar 2009, 11:39

AndySir wrote:

[sarcasm=]RGR's signature is just plain wrong.

According to that graph, oil extraction peaks every year, sometimes three or four times in a single year.[/sarcasm]

Edited so everyone gets it.

DominicJ · Post by **DominicJ** » 16 Mar 2009, 11:46

Depends how you define peak.
If its the highest ever amount of crude production, then the mid 2007 "peak" is not a peak because its lower than all months for the previous two years.

We are supposed to be worried about the highest peak right?

AndySir · Post by **AndySir** » 16 Mar 2009, 12:04

I think we're supposed to be worried that growth in supply can't keep up with an exponential growth in demand, rather than the more academic question of when a 'true' geological peak will/has occur/ed.

Couldn't comment on the predictions of Deffies et al. - they were made before I became aware of the concept of peak oil. No more relevant to me than Hubbert's predictions of a 2000 peak.

My concern is simply based on the absolute fact that our economic system requires exponential growth to remain stable and there is an undoubted limit to such growth in terms of fuel reserves, water, soil and other such essentials. Trying to crystal ball the precise effects of this problem is an exercise in futility.

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 16 Mar 2009, 12:11

Surely PO will only occur once, and we won't know it until some time after the event. It may have happened/be about to happen, or it may be years off, but the PO we discuss here is a one off event. The peaks RGR goes on about are just blips in the graph, and are irrelevant.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 16 Mar 2009, 12:15

JohnB wrote:The peaks RGR goes on about are just blips in the graph, and are irrelevant.

Precisely.

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 16 Mar 2009, 12:31

AndySir wrote:I think we're supposed to be worried that growth in supply can't keep up with an exponential growth in demand, rather than the more academic question of when a 'true' geological peak will/has occur/ed.

Couldn't comment on the predictions of Deffies et al. - they were made before I became aware of the concept of peak oil. No more relevant to me than Hubbert's predictions of a 2000 peak.

My concern is simply based on the absolute fact that our economic system requires exponential growth to remain stable and there is an undoubted limit to such growth in terms of fuel reserves, water, soil and other such essentials. Trying to crystal ball the precise effects of this problem is an exercise in futility.

We also have to worry about the declining EROEI of the oil being extracted. More and more of global GDP will be spent getting the same (or less) useful energy out of the global oil supply. We also have to worry about the net energy available per capita. Of course, most of the increase in world population is amongst the poorest people, who consume very little oil themselves, but they do lead to a 'trickle up' effect, as development brings more people into the industrial age. On that basis, oil supply per world capita peaked in 1980...

Oil is the largest source of primary energy used by man on the planet. Peak oil does not necessarily mean peak energy, but given the declining EROEI of coal, and the uncertainty of the future natural gas supply, there is a good chance that we are very close.

DominicJ · Post by **DominicJ** » 16 Mar 2009, 12:32

Except the blips he goes on about were at the time greeted with screams of "we're all gonna die", and the people who have screamed such half a dozen times are still out there AND still quoted as authorities on the subject.

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 16 Mar 2009, 12:35

DominicJ wrote:Except the blips he goes on about were at the time greeted with screams of "we're all gonna die", and the people who have screamed such half a dozen times are still out there AND still quoted as authorities on the subject.

Evidence?

RGR · Post by **RGR** » 16 Mar 2009, 12:42

[quote="snow hope"]

RGR · Post by **RGR** » 16 Mar 2009, 12:46

[quote="JohnB"]

RGR · Post by **RGR** » 16 Mar 2009, 12:48

[quote="RalphW"]

RGR · Post by **RGR** » 16 Mar 2009, 12:52

[quote="Andy Hunt"]

snow hope · Post by **snow hope** » 16 Mar 2009, 13:08

RGR wrote:
snow hope wrote:
Do you really think we are all stupid?

.
Of course not.

Okay, good.

wrote: But what would you call it when zealotry overwhelms someone's ability to objectively evaluate a given situation?

Zealotry is defined as excessive zeal, fanatacism. Do you really feel we are fanatics? Or, (giving you the benefit of the doubt) do you feel that we are worrying unduely about a matter that you don't think is going to be so much of a problem?

If it is the latter, then yes, you may have a point, although as none of us can predict the future, you also may not have.

I prefer to plan for worst case scenarios, as do many business' (Disaster Recovery plans) and many other humans. But I know plenty of business and humans who don't plan in such a way and are happy to leave things to chance. In the business world, those business' tend not to survive when a disaster occurs...... get the point?

RGR, are you not aware that opinion in the media is swinging very much in the direction that Peak Oil is going to be a serious problem? Or do you ignore this as it contradicts your industry experience and world view?

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 16 Mar 2009, 13:16

RGR wrote:
Andy Hunt wrote:
DominicJ wrote:Except the blips he goes on about were at the time greeted with screams of "we're all gonna die", and the people who have screamed such half a dozen times are still out there AND still quoted as authorities on the subject.
Evidence?
Oh...now you claim to have not read any of Colins work, anything by Ruppert or Pfeiffer, haven't surfed LATOC, and of course Duncan and the Olduvai Gorge which happened in 2008 is self evident...isn't it?

You guys slay me sometimes...

I've read Colin Campbell's ASPO newsletters and one pamphlet, nothing else by him though really.

Have read a bit of Ruppert which seemed mainly political and concerned with 'Big Brother' type conspiracies and a general antiwar sentiment. Nothing about the end of the world connected to particular dates though.

Pfeiffer? Rings a bell, maybe I have come across him at some stage?

LATOC? No, I've never surfed LATOC. Should I have?

Duncan and the Olduvai Gorge 2008? Don't know what you're talking about I'm afraid.

Certainly not come across the kind of sentiment you mention on this forum RGR. Probably why your wild rantings against some kind of perceived peak oil bogeyman sound a bit hysterical to me.

The kind of preparations talked about on this forum, we have been told to make by our own government, including storing food and candles etc etc, as a precaution against 'incidents', terrorist or otherwise. Quite a lot of them are fairly low-energy measures which help tackle carbon emissions, for those who are concerned with such things.

You make a lot of assumptions RGR, I don't know why really, you should know better by now.

Either that or provide some evidence to back up your claims. I can't say I'm that interested in trawling the internet for evidence of some perceived bogeyman which you happen to have have a personal crusade against. Your rantings and ravings against something which nobody here has actually said they believe in are bizarre at best and pretty boring at worse, to tell the truth.