Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Multiple Peaks (split from EIA confirms 2005 Peak)

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: EIA's IPM confirms 2005 as peak production

Unread postby shortonsense » Sat 22 Aug 2009, 15:16:54

eastbay wrote:

The projection when that graph was made was that Cantarell would be at around 750,000 to 800,000/d in 2010 and it was clearly wildly optimistic. Last month it was down to 580,000/d and in four months it wndill be under 500,000. Mexico will soon be a net importer. That's when Mexico collapses. I mean really collapses.


Let me see if I understand this correctly, you are using Cantarell as an example about how PTheStars "depletion science" was actually wildly optimistic...and because of this horrifying and earth shattering over estimate, basic economic theory and common demand destruction was able to make the effects of all of this just...disappear. when examined in a global context?

Well....thanks for that then...here I remember being told that things like over estimates of Middle Eastern reserves mattered, but if this is any example, we'll just take it all in stride then I guess.....
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00

Re: EIA's IPM confirms 2005 as peak production

Unread postby shortonsense » Sat 22 Aug 2009, 15:24:10

AirlinePilot wrote:
shortonsense wrote:Maybe. The global 6% decline in production from 1980 to 1981 certainly caused its share of problems....short lived of course


There is a marked difference from a one year decline and an accelerating decline which encompasses the entire future of world oil production.


Well, the poster seemed pretty hung up on a single decline number for some reason, I simply went and fetched another example of the same thing. And the downslope of Hubberts bell shaped curve probably isn't properly expressed as an "accelerating decline". If the peak is an inflection point, a reverse exponential probably covers the downslope pretty well. Don't quote me on that, I would have to model it first to be sure, but its pretty obvious looking at it that accelerating ain't whats happening.

AIrlinePilot wrote:Even the tiny fact that you mentioned it this way shows your inability to grasp the concept that at some point, a finite amount of oil will cease to allow us to grow the extraction of it.


You can say this all you'd like, but I have already stated exactly your point, so why do you keep harping on it? I've even listed JD's disclaimer for idiots on his website which seems to cover the basics of the concept pretty well.

AirlinePilot wrote: I'd suggest once again you provide some sort of proof that it will be possible for production to gow much above where it was last year. Either that or continue to lose any credibility which you believe you still have by making ridiculous claims in these threads.

Multiple Peaks!!! HA! :lol:


Yeah, don't let a little thing like actual history get in your way...no point in reality interfering with the basics of bad groupthink.
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00

Re: EIA's IPM confirms 2005 as peak production

Unread postby shortonsense » Sat 22 Aug 2009, 15:27:44

AirlinePilot wrote: For those who want a reasonable view of what it takes and the time frames involved, I'd suggest a thorough reading and UNDERSTANDING of the Hirsch Report.

http://www.mnforsustain.org/oil_peaking ... hirsch.htm


I like the Hirsch report. The guy screwed the pooch pretty badly on natural gas, and considering peak happened 4 years ago, and we aren't seeing the devastation claimed by UberDoomers who use his report as some sort of Bible ( the triangles! the triangles! ), I would think reality has been having a field day on his credibility as well.

Have you fact checked recently, or do we need to do some of that on the Mantra Of Hirsch?
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00

Re: EIA's IPM confirms 2005 as peak production

Unread postby vision-master » Sat 22 Aug 2009, 16:01:56

Mental illness is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. :lol:
vision-master
 

Re: EIA's IPM confirms 2005 as peak production

Unread postby shortonsense » Sat 22 Aug 2009, 17:35:41

vision-master wrote:Mental illness is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. :lol:


Stop making fun of peak oilers, they live among us, and might go postal with their hoarded armories if people like you keep pointing out the obvious to them.

A new joke! How many peak oils does it take before a peak oiler gives up on Doom!

TEN!!

<and why is the answer ten?>

Because he has to take his shoes off to go any higher!


:razz: :razz: :razz: :razz: :razz: :razz: :razz: :razz: :razz: :razz:
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00

Re: EIA's IPM confirms 2005 as peak production

Unread postby AirlinePilot » Sat 22 Aug 2009, 17:49:46

shortonsense wrote:
AirlinePilot wrote: For those who want a reasonable view of what it takes and the time frames involved, I'd suggest a thorough reading and UNDERSTANDING of the Hirsch Report.

http://www.mnforsustain.org/oil_peaking ... hirsch.htm


I like the Hirsch report. The guy screwed the pooch pretty badly on natural gas, and considering peak happened 4 years ago, and we aren't seeing the devastation claimed by UberDoomers who use his report as some sort of Bible ( the triangles! the triangles! ), I would think reality has been having a field day on his credibility as well.

Have you fact checked recently, or do we need to do some of that on the Mantra Of Hirsch?


Look, no one is denying that a bunch of folks who are dumb enough to call peak have been wrong. Hirsch's main point, and the takeaway from his landmark report is that without serious efforts at mitigation starting sometime far in advance of the peak, you get exactly what we are seeing now. Volatility which destroys business and makes planning a very difficult task. Production fluctuations which mask the real underlying problems, and the inability of the masses to understand the root cause of those particular problems. Avoiding future greater problems becomes nearly impossible the closer to peak you wait to transition. You dont do it gradually or smoothly when we are likely so close now to the peak.

That is the gist of the Hirsch report and I would love to see you refute his findings when it comes to the 3 scenarios of peak oil mitigation or lack thereof.
User avatar
AirlinePilot
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4378
Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South of Atlanta

Re: EIA's IPM confirms 2005 as peak production

Unread postby newman1979 » Sat 22 Aug 2009, 18:37:03

It's also true that you, shorts do not have an understanding of scale and time to scale dynamics that Hirsch has identified. France, Japan and Europe started seriously getting off oil in the 70's. But even today with all the massive infrastructure investment and firm and steady policies in place, still require large amounts of imported oil after 35 years.
This is a current events thread. If you do not have a news item, please don't troll, Oil Finder 2 always respects the thread and brings facts in support of his positions and adds value to the discussion.
User avatar
newman1979
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon 25 Sep 2006, 03:00:00

Re: EIA's IPM confirms 2005 as peak production

Unread postby Pops » Sat 22 Aug 2009, 19:04:02

newman1979 wrote:This is a current events thread. If you do not have a news item, please don't troll, Oil Finder 2 always respects the thread and brings facts in support of his positions and adds value to the discussion.

Take a hint SoS.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: EIA's IPM confirms 2005 as peak production

Unread postby vision-master » Sat 22 Aug 2009, 19:14:05

SoS is nothing more than 'chimp chatter'. :P
vision-master
 

Re: EIA's IPM confirms 2005 as peak production

Unread postby shortonsense » Sat 22 Aug 2009, 20:16:37

Pops wrote:
newman1979 wrote:This is a current events thread. If you do not have a news item, please don't troll, Oil Finder 2 always respects the thread and brings facts in support of his positions and adds value to the discussion.

Take a hint SoS.


Sure. A current events thread about 4 year old events. Okay.

Hows this then? .....4 years ago when peak oil happened according to the topic of this thread, gasoline prices in the US were approximately $3.13 a gallon, according to the EIA spreadsheet which anyone can download. That same EIA spreadsheet says that this week, its about $2.65/gal, nominal prices both.

Can someone please point out where 4 years post peak the actual price of the products made from our quickly vanishing and rapidly "accelerating" depleting crude supplies were supposed to drop as a consequence? While the zombie hordes, resource wars, and starvation UberDoomer claims are quite easy to find, I seem to be having some trouble with this particular effect being predicted as part of the mantra of peak oil.

Current events, i.e. the actual price of gasoline, seems to be disagreeing with what was actually expected, now that we know peak oil actually happened years ago.
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00

Re: EIA's IPM confirms 2005 as peak production

Unread postby shortonsense » Sat 22 Aug 2009, 20:17:32

AirlinePilot wrote: That is the gist of the Hirsch report and I would love to see you refute his findings when it comes to the 3 scenarios of peak oil mitigation or lack thereof.


It will have to be elsewhere. Perhaps there is an old Hirsch thread which we can reinvigorate?
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00

Re: EIA's IPM confirms 2005 as peak production

Unread postby thuja » Sat 22 Aug 2009, 20:52:03

shortonsense wrote:
Pops wrote:
newman1979 wrote:This is a current events thread. If you do not have a news item, please don't troll, Oil Finder 2 always respects the thread and brings facts in support of his positions and adds value to the discussion.

Take a hint SoS.


Sure. A current events thread about 4 year old events. Okay.

Hows this then? .....4 years ago when peak oil happened according to the topic of this thread, gasoline prices in the US were approximately $3.13 a gallon, according to the EIA spreadsheet which anyone can download. That same EIA spreadsheet says that this week, its about $2.65/gal, nominal prices both.

Can someone please point out where 4 years post peak the actual price of the products made from our quickly vanishing and rapidly "accelerating" depleting crude supplies were supposed to drop as a consequence? While the zombie hordes, resource wars, and starvation UberDoomer claims are quite easy to find, I seem to be having some trouble with this particular effect being predicted as part of the mantra of peak oil.

Current events, i.e. the actual price of gasoline, seems to be disagreeing with what was actually expected, now that we know peak oil actually happened years ago.


That's easy- we have moderately priced gasoline similar to the price 4 years ago- because we are in a massive global recession. I already referenced the WSJ article that blames the global recession in large part due to astronomical oil prices. Astronomical oil prices were due to...world oil constraints.

No global effect from Peak Oil? You'd have to be blind not to notice whats happening.

Worse- we are seeing escalating oil prices (in the 70's $) in the midst of a global recession. I wonder what the price will be when the economy really revs up again...
No Soup for You!!
User avatar
thuja
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2202
Joined: Sat 15 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: EIA's IPM confirms 2005 as peak production

Unread postby newman1979 » Sat 22 Aug 2009, 21:23:22

The new news that was in the most recent IPM was that 2008 crude production was revised down under 2005 establishing a multi year time line. 2009 production is running almost 2 m/b/d below 2008 . We almost certainly can agree 2009 production will be less than 2005 based on the 6 month data. 60 months, that's news shorts.
User avatar
newman1979
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon 25 Sep 2006, 03:00:00

Re: EIA's IPM confirms 2005 as peak production

Unread postby shortonsense » Sat 22 Aug 2009, 22:59:17

thuja wrote:That's easy- we have moderately priced gasoline similar to the price 4 years ago- because we are in a massive global recession. I already referenced the WSJ article that blames the global recession in large part due to astronomical oil prices. Astronomical oil prices were due to...world oil constraints.


Greenspan referenced both supply/demand and speculation as the issue, although some others certainly concentrated on speculation

http://www.bulatlat.com/main/2009/01/10 ... e-in-2008/

However, implicit in your statement is what I consider to be an obvious, and oft missed point, both back when peak oil happened in 2005 as well as today...the absolute volume of supply DOES NOT MATTER if those willing to PAY for their demand are less than that available for supply.

Recessions tend to be wonderful examples of supply/demand in action. It should be noted that this idea is in vogue now, rather than when peak happened, where demand destruction was dismissed as having much ability to sway prices. Some still list such obvious nonsense front and center, having not paid attention to reality since peak oil happened.

"The peak of the curve coincides with the point at which the endowment of oil has been 50 percent depleted. Once the peak is passed, oil production begins to go down while cost begins to go up."

Savinar, M, 2009, website quoted for use as example of incompetence only, not as reference to actual information.

thuja wrote:No global effect from Peak Oil? You'd have to be blind not to notice whats happening.


What I've noticed I've already referenced...dropping prices for the commodity which most Americans see the price of, and use, nearly every day.

Unlike some, I certainly do not confuse mortgage issues or financial incompetence with any unified field theory of oil and its influence on the number of stars in the sky, or whatever the most interesting claims are of late.
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00

Re: EIA's IPM confirms 2005 as peak production

Unread postby shortonsense » Sat 22 Aug 2009, 23:01:41

newman1979 wrote: We almost certainly can agree 2009 production will be less than 2005 based on the 6 month data. 60 months, that's news shorts.


Sure its news....so is how Jasmine Fiore was identified. Being "news" does not automatically grant credibility to the imagined crisis dejour.
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00

Re: EIA's IPM confirms 2005 as peak production

Unread postby thuja » Sat 22 Aug 2009, 23:17:01

SOS: From the Wall Street Journal Article referenced earlier...

1- Direct correlation between high oil prices and recent global recession.

2- Most analysts agree that oil price is likely to go back up strongly as the economy recovers

3- Most analysts agree that oil price is likely to go back up strongly due to...global production constraints.

This is not weirdo kook stuff. This is the WSJ. This is in Forbes and Business week etc.

Again- argue the really sinister stuff if you want but this is...pretty much conventional wisdom.
No Soup for You!!
User avatar
thuja
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2202
Joined: Sat 15 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: EIA's IPM confirms 2005 as peak production

Unread postby thuja » Sat 22 Aug 2009, 23:27:12

shortonsense wrote:
thuja wrote:No global effect from Peak Oil? You'd have to be blind not to notice whats happening.


What I've noticed I've already referenced...dropping prices for the commodity which most Americans see the price of, and use, nearly every day.




Wow- then somehow you missed the collapse of the auto industry, the implosion of parts of the airline industry, the global recession, the dramatic drop in price of exurban and suburban homes, the massive leap towards renewables in the form of biofuels, wind and solar, inflation in food prices and cooking fuel that crimped the world's poor, etc etc etc.
No Soup for You!!
User avatar
thuja
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2202
Joined: Sat 15 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: EIA's IPM confirms 2005 as peak production

Unread postby shortonsense » Sat 22 Aug 2009, 23:46:04

thuja wrote:SOS: From the Wall Street Journal Article referenced earlier...

1- Direct correlation between high oil prices and recent global recession.


I went back and looked, but couldn't find the link to the article. Having said that, I would venture that a recession PRECEEDING the actual high oil prices certainly makes a cause and effect argument moot.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/21/news/ec ... /index.htm

thuja wrote:2- Most analysts agree that oil price is likely to go back up strongly as the economy recovers


Crude prices have been trending higher since 1973, the continuation of that trend would neither be a surprise nor a result of peak oil in 2005.

thuja wrote:3- Most analysts agree that oil price is likely to go back up strongly due to...global production constraints.


And science professors who estimate the costs of a transition might say that such a price increase would be excellent incentive for most people to do what they should do WITHOUT the price runup, which is switch over to something more eco-friendly. Wish I could find the link, when I do I'll post it.

And I would reference the graphs presented earlier in this thread showing no increase in crude consumption necessary for economic recovery. Not analysts, or speculators trying to make a buck by "pulling a Simmons", but actual countries, actually growing, actually not using more crude.

thuja wrote:This is not weirdo kook stuff. This is the WSJ. This is in Forbes and Business week etc.


Sure it is. Analysts do their jobs and worry about what they worry about. But its the market reacting to price signals which actually FIXES stuff, and its changes in human behavior in reaction to stimulii that causes markets to do just that.
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00

Re: EIA's IPM confirms 2005 as peak production

Unread postby shortonsense » Sat 22 Aug 2009, 23:53:18

thuja wrote:Wow- then somehow you missed the collapse of the auto industry,


The auto industry is selling less cars, its only a mess because of more poor financial planning on their part ( notice not all needed the government bailout, particularly the ones who have been building decent cars rather than concentrating on short term profit centers like pickups and SUVs ), certainly it isn't peak oils fault.

thuja wrote:the implosion of parts of the airline industry,


You mean the ones I've been flying on lately, the same ones reacting the same way as the auto industry by cutting back because, well, thats what you do during recessions? And this wasn't caused by peak oil either.

thuja wrote: the global recession,


Recessions are a part of a business cycle. Its why it actually has a NAME. They aren't reserved for post peak oil events.

thuja wrote:the dramatic drop in price of exurban and suburban homes, the massive leap towards renewables in the form of biofuels, wind and solar, inflation in food prices and cooking fuel that crimped the world's poor, etc etc etc.


Oh please, now you are just making stuff up. The housing bubble was a disaster in the making, Dr Doom certainly saw it coming and talked about it extensively, and nary once claimed peak oil caused it, the massive leap towards renewables is happening because it SHOULD and has government subsidies and backing, and poor nations have been poor in the past, couldn't afford stuff, and it wasn't because of peak oil either.

Come on Thuja, laundry lists of unrelated or things which have been going on FOREVER can hardly be rearranged to be the fault of peak oil just because you want it to be so.
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00

Re: EIA's IPM confirms 2005 as peak production

Unread postby thuja » Sun 23 Aug 2009, 00:47:58

Ummmkay SOS-

I think we're at an impasse. You're not even able to see ramifications from astronomical oil prices- so...I'm out.
No Soup for You!!
User avatar
thuja
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2202
Joined: Sat 15 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Portland, Oregon

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 90 guests