Making a distinction between PO and 'running out'

skeptik · Post by **skeptik** » 04 Oct 2005, 12:46

[This topic was split from England - Should we stay or should we go?]

hatchelt wrote:My friend and I are discussing where to set up a commune, ready for when the world runs out of oil and gas.

You're going to have to wait a long time then - several hundred years. There's a well in Pensylvannia which dates back to the 19th century. Its only producing a few pints of oil a day but it hasn't run out yet

It will possibly still be pumping when we're both dead - its in a museum of the oil industry.

skeptik · Post by **skeptik** » 04 Oct 2005, 14:27

nancy wrote:You don't seem to have received many answers to your good question.

Thats because its not a very good question, and there are no good answers to the question that should have been asked.

The world isn't going to run out of oil and gas any time soon.

It seems likely that there will be a peak of production of liguid hydrocarbons sometime between now and 2015. I dont think anybody can be more specific than that because a) the data does not exist b ) what data does exist is inaccurate/ fragmentary c) everybody involved who has good data has a motivation to conceal it or lie about it anyway. This uncertainty is what has got Matt Simmons so upset. He's an investment banker. He cant give sensible investment advice if he doesnt have the data to do an analysis on which to base that advice. I think he wants to know whats going on for the benefit of his own business as much as anything else.

The peak could have already happenned for all I know. At the very least we seem currently to be in an underinvestment bottleneck. Even after peak has happened we probably wont be able to say for sure for a decade or so. There are reasons why output can drop other than the absolute constraints of geology. - maybe a sizeable portion of the worlds exploration rigs get smashed up by a couple of hurricanes and that creates a bottleneck.... new projects dont come on stream to replace depletion... Market panic (for whatever reason) creates a price spike / recession / demand & production collapse.

if you really feal the need to move, go somewhere with a low population density, mild climate and high(ish) rainfall. NZ looks good to me. Australia looks hopeless. too dry, too dependent on pumped irrigation.. too spread out, too dependent on the car. More of an American than a European lifestyle

I'm staying put. I like London.[/b]

hatchelt · Post by **hatchelt** » 04 Oct 2005, 14:36

let's try not to get too caught up on the technicalities of the wording in the question. like i said, i'm after pros and cons for both staying here and leaving.
cheers
________
[URL=http://www.lamborghini-
CAR ADVERT REMOVED

skeptik · Post by **skeptik** » 04 Oct 2005, 14:57

hatchelt wrote:let's try not to get too caught up on the technicalities of the wording in the question. like i said, i'm after pros and cons for both staying here and leaving.
cheers

Well I hope my opinion was at least of interest.

The technicality of the wording of the question is of interest as it exemplifies the misunderstanding of the situation seen in the attitude of the general public. Most people think it is all about 'running out of oil' Anyiody who has looked into the subject should know better, and should make the effort not to re-enforce the 'running out of oil' mythology.

We've been 'running out of oil' ever since prehistory, when somebody, probably in the Euphrates valley, scooped some out of a pool and used it to fuel a lamp... but that's not the point, as Im sure you know.

If technological civilisation goes down the tubes, Im not all that interested in where I'm going to be. I dont really want to be anywhere that doesnt do antibiotics, cell phones and open heart surgery.

DamianB · Post by **DamianB** » 04 Oct 2005, 16:01

fishertrop wrote:skeptik, I think you are being a bit harsh on hatchelt - I knew what he meant, the inexact wording doesn't make him/her a chump.

No, but skeptik makes a VERY important point.

Bandidoz · Post by **Bandidoz** » 04 Oct 2005, 20:02

DamianB wrote:
fishertrop wrote:skeptik, I think you are being a bit harsh on hatchelt - I knew what he meant, the inexact wording doesn't make him/her a chump.
No, but skeptik makes a VERY important point.

Indeed but he could simply apply a bit of common sense and state "Don't you mean to say...." rather than coming across as a pedantic troll.

nancy · Post by **nancy** » 05 Oct 2005, 01:10

Damian B wrote [/quote]No, but skeptik makes a VERY important point

What was that point? I didn't think the question implied that what skeptik said hadn't been understood.

I could see all those same advantages for NZ when I first discovered PO, and I grew up there, have loads of friends there and with an OZ passport could move there tomorrow. Then a leading Peaknik in NZ joined Sydney Peak Oil saying he had chosen to move here specifically because of his PO related concerns, plus the increasing undersea volcanic activity/ linked heightened tsunami risk, rapid glaciation has caused second thoughts.

DamianB · Post by **DamianB** » 05 Oct 2005, 10:48

It is generally acknowledged that if one is trying to introduce a concept that challenges the status quo, particularly a technical or scientfic one, the criteria demanded by those whose position is questioned is much greater than when offering evidence supporting the current paradigm.

Skeptics will quite rightly ridicule anyone who tries to introduce Peak Oil as 'running out' - we have ALWAYS been running out of oil.

skeptic was gently ribbing hatchelt and I wanted to ensure that this important point wasn't lost - which is also why I split the old topic.

skeptik · Post by **skeptik** » 05 Oct 2005, 13:26

Bandidoz wrote: Indeed but he could simply apply a bit of common sense and state "Don't you mean to say...." rather than coming across as a pedantic troll.

OOh... I love it when you talk dirty...

SherryMayo · Post by **SherryMayo** » 06 Oct 2005, 02:18

of course, there is the risk that if a wording-nazi "ribbing" culture starts to grow on the board, new joiners/posters might think twice before asking simple questions, starting threads etc..

Hatchelt makes a very important point here. I much prefer the powerswitch board to our local Australia one (ROEOZ) because the latter has developed a pedantic and negative culture that has precisely the toxic effect that Hatchelt describes. Good people are leaving the board because of it.

Text is a very limiting medium and what may be written in a lighthearted way will often not be read that way. Misunderstandings of intent and tone are all too easy and can create a lot of unnecessary friction. So please, don't get so seduced by the gratification of being pedantically right, that you lose sight of the bigger picture of building common ground and community. You have a fantastic board here on powerswitch, the best by a long way of any of the peak oil boards. There are more contructive ways to make the points you are trying to make that will preserve the good things about powerswitch and will be less alienating to newbies.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 06 Oct 2005, 10:53

AAAAAAAAAAARGH! I agree with everyone!

On the one hand Skeptik is right - the distinction between running out and reaching peak is absolutely fundamental to people's understanding of the problem and appreciation of the urgency of it.

However, being vehemently "right" is one of the most effective ways I know to make people roll the mental shutters down and switch off.

My personal feeling is that this thread is in danger of disappearing into a black hole of semantics while there are probably more constructive things we could be discussing...

PowerSwitchJames · Post by **PowerSwitchJames** » 06 Oct 2005, 11:49

There is a time and place for pedantic comments. I hope they are kept to a limit on this board. I have no hesitation in stamping out un-necessary and provocative pedantic behaviour. Seeking clarifcation about what a person meant is okay but to pick at a comment in a way that may seem designed to put another person down is something I am not tolerant of - it is something I have to put up with on a daily basis and I'd rather not see it on these boards as it is totally needless. It needles me.

Freedom of speech. Within limits.

My limits.

j/k

peaky · Post by **peaky** » 06 Oct 2005, 13:49

SherryMayo wrote:So please, don't get so seduced by the gratification of being pedantically right, that you lose sight of the bigger picture of building common ground and community. You have a fantastic board here on powerswitch, the best by a long way of any of the peak oil boards.

Very nicely expressed Sherry - thanks.

skeptik · Post by **skeptik** » 06 Oct 2005, 16:19

Joe wrote:
However, being vehemently "right" is one of the most effective ways I know to make people roll the mental shutters down and switch off.

Absolutely.

When people indulge in wild , innacurate or hyperbolic assertion it tends to put off others not currently involved in the debate, or only just getting into it. . Thats why accuracy is so important. It worries me when people say things like 'conventional oil production will peak on Thanksgiving Day 2005' or 'where to set up a commune, ready for when the world runs out of oil and gas.'

I and others who know that Ken Deffeyes has a highly developed sense of humour, might 'get it' - that he is using hyperbole for effect, and is also taking a poke at a lot of pseudo-accurate economic forcasting. But most people won't. And thats the danger.

I imagine, unlike the dozen or so regular posters here, most casual viewers of this forum have no idea what hatchelt does or does not understand of the subject and will tend to take what he/she says at face value.

And that was my intitial reaction too. On reading "My friend and I are discussing where to set up a commune, ready for when the world runs out of oil and gas." I thought "This guy doesnt have a clue what he's talking about." from subsequent posts in this thread, It would seem he/she does. I stand corrected.

We've seen that happen to an extent in the climate change (aka 'global warming' ) debate. The debate has become highly polarised and politicised. Both sides have made extreme and/or unsubstantiated claims and, as you say, many people have 'rolled the mental shutters down' as a result.

It would be a shame if the peak oil debate goes the same way - grandstanding at the extremes, neither side taking each other or the middle ground seriously.

MacG · Post by **MacG** » 06 Oct 2005, 20:02

skeptik wrote:I imagine, unlike the dozen or so regular posters here, most casual viewers of this forum have no idea what hatchelt does or does not understand of the subject and will tend to take what he/she says at face value.

Love it or hate it, but there are quite some elitistic values in just this forum. Personally I happen to love it. I dont care so much about enlightening just about everyone who happens to stumble over the site, I'm happy if it's a magnet for the already enlightened.