[TonyPrep]

Ahhh. Spoken like a true statist! Of course, in order to first see things as you do, I need first to accept Climate Change as being largely driven by anthropogenic greenhouse gasses, that some wacky meaningless word... "sustainability"... will mean anything in 50 or 100 years, and that resource availability are as described by folks that have one agenda or another and disconnected to the reality of resource availability.

No. As you were confounded by suggestions that energy use should be limited, I thought I'd point out the reasons to reduce your confusion. This doesn't require you to accept anything.

My point in all of this is that it seems you have decided that hydrocarbons are a declining resource, energy should not be abundant, and that work by clever folks to promulgate either one should be stifled for reasons that are based more upon your value system than science or capacity alone.

Although a decline in fossil fuels probably does mean that, that is only one aspect of resource depletion. Energy growth is allied to increased resource usage of all kinds. In a finite world, it is misleading to suggest that such growth can continue indefinitely. At some point we will have to reduce our use of resources to their renewal rate. You might believe that such a point is so far in the future that you can safely let future generations worry about that. I don't share that belief.

If it is going away anyway, why regulate it so heavily? Why not promote drilling all over the world as much as possible so we don't need to have a meaningless debate about whether it is going away or not?

What on earth does that mean? If it is going away anyway, what is the advantage to building an even larger dependency on it? Why not try to anticipate the declines and figure out how to deal with that?

In the end, like I said, it is about cost. I am certain that other energies will achieve attractive cost efficiencies on their own over time. Betting on human ingenuity is the one sure best bet historically.

By all means bet. But you have absolutely no basis for assuming that humans will always figure out any problem, no matter how intractable. Sometimes, the impossible is, well, impossible. That you have undying faith in mankind may be considered laudable, I would regard it as misguided and not in our best interests.

[TonyPrep]

Furthermore, nitrogen fertilizer can be produced without any fossil fuel at all, using hydroelectricity, wind or nuclear power. Nitrogen comes from the air, not from natural gas. For details, see:
PEAK OIL AND FERTILIZER: NO PROBLEM

Please inform yourself better so that you don't perpetuate lies.

You never address scale.

[TonyPrep]

If I offend some of you, it is because you don't like seeing YOUR faith attacked.

If you are concerned about energy security, then it is not faith to think that sticking to renewables ,at or below their renewal rates, (and in ways that don't harm our habitat) is certain to give energy security. It most certainly is faith to assume that humans will figure out ways to grow our energy consumption for ever.

[skyemoor]

The most interesting breakthroughs are in rock physics and better quantifying and inducing fracturing.

Ok, we are getting somewhere; can you be more specific?

The Non-Traditional reserves we are finding, ... These resources are trillions of barrels in size.

The projections are all over the map (i.e., Bakken = 10 to 400 billion barrels). Of course, the percentage economically and technically recoverable is the real number to consider.

So, the energy does not reach your panacea of non-pollutive, but what does? The answer is "nothing". Everything is impactful and everything has non-rationalized costs on one level or another.

Yet some sources are orders of magnitude lower in impact, which qualifies them as candidates for transition and long-term energy sources.

Don't you think it disingenuous to say I cherry picked?

No, or otherwise I wouldn't have said it. I simply showed other aspects of the survey that popped the bubble of the perception you were attempting to portray.

There was a lot of interesting things said in those surveys, don't you think? Of course, if a survey was "turned down by Science", then how was it illigitimate?

I don't understand the last sentence.

I can't wait to hear your thoughts on the other part of this equation... human population growth and your proposed solutions for that.

So you believe it to be a problem, and you have your own solution? Or not? Infinite growth, perhaps?

Waiting for your comments on the DoE report.

Skyemoor and the other peak oilies talk a good game about sustainability and GHG's etc., but it's mostly just rank hypocrisy like Al Gore. They're all living gas-guzzling lifestyles, and investing in oil stocks etc. What kind of car do you drive Skyemoor?

I'm a bit surprised to see you make wild assumptions like this, JD.

When I drive, it's my 2000 Honda Insight, though I vanpool to work, and bike to errands whenever possible. My next position will be one where I telecommute 90% of the time. Being close to a bike path helps, and the whole family bikes in on Saturdays to the farmer's market to pick up the bulk of the week's groceries (those we don't grow ourselves). The wife drives a Prius, though as a writer she works from home.

Our passive solar house is highly insulated for the region (power systems engineering is my background, with solar engineering as one of my electives, so I designed the solar aspects myself). It is primarily powered by a 2kW thin-film PV array in a net-metering arrangement. All appliances were selected on the basis of energy-efficiency and quality. And we live a conservation lifestyle, so there is little net grid energy use, if any, for any given month. We have a new solar cooker, though it is usually only used a couple times per week so far.

We have a moderate sized garden (20'x 80') in raised beds, and our sheep provide the fertilizer that makes it grow quite successfully. We landscaped 2 years ago with 45 disease-resistant fruit and nut trees in an edible landscaping approach, and some of those are starting to come into bearing.

And we recycle, etc, etc. I've posted this a few times before, so look back through my posts to see that I'm not just responding here off the cuff.

A) Keep driving and enjoying the eazy lifestyle
B) Stop emission of GHGs and save the polar bears
We know exactly which option Joe Sixpack is going to choose.

Bush did say "American is addicted to oil". It remains to be seen if that addiction can be broken. Of course, some in this thread have the opposite objective.

This very interesting article on human discount rates directly addresses your hypothesis.

[skyemoor]

A regular journalist quoting oil execs and bankers having "large land positions" in the Bakken formation. Hardly anything to hang one's hat on.

Yes, and we know that peak oil theorists who hate hydrocarbon fuels are reliable sources of information, too.

I believe there are a number of well-respected industry figures who are earnest in their concerns and projections, and to simply dismiss them by stating they "hate hydrocarbon fuels" shows a deficit in your position.

If you can find something from a reliable source, we'll look at it.

https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/newsletter/ ... mation.pdf
Page 5:

"The per well cost is approximate $2.2 million with the potential for the well to produce 500 to 700 BOPD initially, leveling off at 250 BOPD with virtually no water.

Yes, the same reference that states, " science places the oil potential of the Bakken between 10 and 400 billion barrels of oil", with Price's disputed projection stretching the high estimate. Which is why you said "The reason why estimates of URR are all over the place is because no one really knows."

Maybe if I link and highlight this ten more times people will finally get it:
http://www.nd.gov/ndic/ic-press/bakken-form-06.pdf
^
Page 2:
"How much of the generated oil is recoverable remains to be determined. Estimates of 50%, 18%, and 3 to 10% have been published."

Nobody knows how much is recoverable. Your 15% is not cast in stone, as you seem to believe.

I was simply using your reference. The 50% estimate is a far cry from all the others (Price?), so we have little reason to consider it reasonable, unless you can point to data where this has been shown to have been accomplished in a well that is representative of the rest of Bakken.

That means we are left with 18%, 10%, and 3%; in this light, 15% looks to be reasonably optimistic.

So to recap, you have stated;

"The reason why estimates of URR are all over the place is because no one really knows.", and

"Nobody knows how much is recoverable. "

Are these statements that provide any sense of energy security? We will remember these statements anytime you tout Bakken as a major resource that will make up for a significant percentage of the current and projected declines from major producers.

[skyemoor]

Furthermore, nitrogen fertilizer can be produced without any fossil fuel at all, using hydroelectricity, wind or nuclear power. Nitrogen comes from the air, not from natural gas. For details, see:
PEAK OIL AND FERTILIZER: NO PROBLEM

Please inform yourself better so that you don't perpetuate lies.

You never address scale.

Nor timeframe to change over the current natural-gas based ammonia production infrastructure. Nor what to do about all the hydropower that is currently tied up with baseload electricity generation. And the comments on that blog entry pretty well shred his premise, though he brings up some interesting references.

I think it's great, though, that JD's a proponent of renewable energy sources.

[JohnDenver]

You never address scale.

Tony, I am more than willing to do a hundred page thread with you on the topic of scale at any time. I only have one condition: that you formulate the problem of scale for me -- tell me what human beings won't be able to do -- in one sentence.

[JohnDenver]

I'm a bit surprised to see you make wild assumptions like this, JD.

When I drive, it's my 2000 Honda Insight, though I vanpool to work, and bike to errands whenever possible.

Apologies, Skyemoor. You're one of the good guys. I'll treat you with more respect in the future.

[JohnDenver]

Furthermore, nitrogen fertilizer can be produced without any fossil fuel at all, using hydroelectricity, wind or nuclear power. Nitrogen comes from the air, not from natural gas. For details, see:
PEAK OIL AND FERTILIZER: NO PROBLEM

Please inform yourself better so that you don't perpetuate lies.

You never address scale.

Nor timeframe to change over the current natural-gas based ammonia production infrastructure. Nor what to do about all the hydropower that is currently tied up with baseload electricity generation.

We will switch from the current natural-gas based ammonia infrastructure when it becomes economic to do so -- i.e. when imports become too expensive, or it becomes cheaper to use coal, or nuclear. We don't live under the Soviet system where these transitions are scheduled by apparatchiks without reference to prices.

And who said that fertilizer has to be produced with hydro? It can be, but it will more likely be produced with coal, and then nuclear.

[OilmanChoke]

Hmmm. It really doesn't matter to me whether we have Peak Oil, Plateau Oil, or NotPeak Oil, whether now or in the future. I have seen the energy balance projections and they depend on economic viabilities of each component, and in no case does the sky fall. The fact that Peak Oil concept has taken on such an important role to many of you is telling, if only to highlight a kind of catastrophic "the sky is falling" mindset. The most interesting comment was the fellow (person?) who stated that he or she had no faith in mankind, and that it was somehow dangerous to have faith in the ingenuity of mankind. Wow. So, somehow, I should have more faith in Chicken Littles and politicians seeking to increase their power instead of engineers and scientists who look for technical solutions.

The Dude... (Love the movie and the name)... Our friends the Japanese will screw with the Clathrates, just like they do the whales. The US is spending a big portion of its DOE research dollars on Clathrates, and some fellow just came up with a way of mapping them via sulfate geochemistry that is supposedly very cheap. Of course, figuring out how to capture the methane as it sublimates from ice to gas is the trick, and certainly screwing with the pressure/temperature regime is risky. Kind of like the first Nukes, where the possibility existed for setting off a global chain reaction. That must have been a butt clencher day in NM for those in the know!

I have read about the conjectures about Clathrate drivers in the past, and it makes some sense. We see a lot of catastrophic climate change in the geological record. 100,000 year on up volcanoes will also be good candidates (10 times plus the historical human greenhouse gas load released in one eruption). If we want a civilization that lasts more than 100,000 years (current set up is only 100 years old at best), we better be able to deal with natural phenomena that is truly catastrophic. By the way, the last 100,000 year volcano is overdue, I think. I am pretty sure a policy paper and world wide tax scheme won't cut that mustard.

If Peak Oil wasn't an issue, would you think differently about "what needs to be done"? If anthropogenic greenhouse gas effects were shown conclusively to be bunk as climate drivers, would you alter your worldview?

If I had called a tree "wacky", no one would have objected. If I had called the concept of God "wacky", some of you may have been offended. When I called the concept of "sustainability" wacky, I got a response that was the equivalent to telling a church full the same thing about God. I also described why I thought the concept was wacky. Predictions are not accurate, they assume perfect knowledge, and mandating action on imperfect knowledge is silly. Sustainability means nothing without population control, population control leads to human rights violations of the highest magnitude. I repeat my query, if we have a 300 year supply of something, doesn't that qualify as sustainable for all intents and purposes? Please, one of you go invent a 1000 year or 100000 year sustainable, cheap energy supply. Mankind would be better off, and you will be richer than Creseus (OK, I probably spelled that wrong)... until 50 years or 100 years from now when someone invents something better. Unless you agree with my friend on this board that he essentially doesn't believe in human ingenuity. That isn't even addressable it so contrary to every bit of available evidence, unless he is living in Darfour.


Lastly, everyone has a dog in this fight. I am an oilman. I derive income from finding and producing oil and gas. Climate researchers work largely for governmental entities. They seek funding, and funding is grotesquely available to study the "problem", because there is a power grab underway. Governments are no different than large corporations except that they don't have to regulated effectively or pay taxes, and if we don't want to buy what they are selling, they can force us to buy it. It wants to get bigger, like most human entities. That poll I referenced has a lot of interesting insights into what climate scientists think about the power of press and funding on their research results. Many in my industry have pointed out that Matt Simmons is an Investment Banker specializing in oil field services. By creating a scarcity scare, he commands higher valuations for the companies he finances and sells. Matt Simmons and his proselytizing about Peak Oil has made me more money than Plateau or NonPeak oil has ever made me. Go Matt! Go Peak Oil Brothers! You MIGHT be right! You MIGHT not!


It's not just money, either. Many of you have a lot invested in your value systems... to the point of hating "conservatives" whatever that term means anymore, and calling me a dick on an internet forum, for Gods sake! It is natural to support those that validate your values and attack those that do not. However, that is not an objective "care about my children's future" point of view any more than my oilman's point of view of the world, and probably much less so, since I have to be right to make money... objectively right.

Most of us would fight hard to deny that we may have been played for fools our entire lives or entire adult lives, and that are values are worthless garbage. This applies on any side of a faith-based argument. Just don't hand me this "objective observer" pap.

Who is more objective? Someone who performs research for money or someone who performs research to validate their underlying value system?

[thuja]

Furthermore, nitrogen fertilizer can be produced without any fossil fuel at all, using hydroelectricity, wind or nuclear power. Nitrogen comes from the air, not from natural gas. For details, see:
PEAK OIL AND FERTILIZER: NO PROBLEM

Please inform yourself better so that you don't perpetuate lies.

You never address scale.

Nor timeframe to change over the current natural-gas based ammonia production infrastructure. Nor what to do about all the hydropower that is currently tied up with baseload electricity generation.

We will switch from the current natural-gas based ammonia infrastructure when it becomes economic to do so -- i.e. when imports become too expensive, or it becomes cheaper to use coal, or nuclear. We don't live under the Soviet system where these transitions are scheduled by apparatchiks without reference to prices.

And who said that fertilizer has to be produced with hydro? It can be, but it will more likely be produced with coal, and then nuclear.

Again JD- I think you miss the point that preparations for large scale changes must take place well in advance of a crisis. This is the reasoned conclusions of the DoE report and just makes common sense.

Your argument that market forces will simply be able to allow for a smooth transition is untenable.

[thuja]

JD


Here are the points that I think you make that I think are worth investigating...

1- We have been at plateau for 2-3 years and have yet to see a major economic recession.

2- Market forces will play a role in switching away from fossil fuels.


Here are the points that I think you should leave behind...

1- The peaking of fossil fuels is not a "serious problem" requiring a great deal of attention.

2- Since nothing has happened to me and people around me seem fine, there will never be problems due to oil depletion.

3- Market forces will allow a smooth transition to alternative energies, electricity based fertilizer, etc., with little effect on our lives.

The first points can be discussed rationally. The latter points cannot be discussed intelligently. And since you are an intelligent well read person, I am unsure why you posit these points.

[thuja]

Hmmm. It really doesn't matter to me whether we have Peak Oil, Plateau Oil, or NotPeak Oil, whether now or in the future. I have seen the energy balance projections and they depend on economic viabilities of each component, and in no case does the sky fall. The fact that Peak Oil concept has taken on such an important role to many of you is telling, if only to highlight a kind of catastrophic "the sky is falling" mindset. The most interesting comment was the fellow (person?) who stated that he or she had no faith in mankind, and that it was somehow dangerous to have faith in the ingenuity of mankind. Wow. So, somehow, I should have more faith in Chicken Littles and politicians seeking to increase their power instead of engineers and scientists who look for technical solutions.

The Dude... (Love the movie and the name)... Our friends the Japanese will screw with the Clathrates, just like they do the whales. The US is spending a big portion of its DOE research dollars on Clathrates, and some fellow just came up with a way of mapping them via sulfate geochemistry that is supposedly very cheap. Of course, figuring out how to capture the methane as it sublimates from ice to gas is the trick, and certainly screwing with the pressure/temperature regime is risky. Kind of like the first Nukes, where the possibility existed for setting off a global chain reaction. That must have been a butt clencher day in NM for those in the know!

I have read about the conjectures about Clathrate drivers in the past, and it makes some sense. We see a lot of catastrophic climate change in the geological record. 100,000 year on up volcanoes will also be good candidates (10 times plus the historical human greenhouse gas load released in one eruption). If we want a civilization that lasts more than 100,000 years (current set up is only 100 years old at best), we better be able to deal with natural phenomena that is truly catastrophic. By the way, the last 100,000 year volcano is overdue, I think. I am pretty sure a policy paper and world wide tax scheme won't cut that mustard.

If Peak Oil wasn't an issue, would you think differently about "what needs to be done"? If anthropogenic greenhouse gas effects were shown conclusively to be bunk as climate drivers, would you alter your worldview?

If I had called a tree "wacky", no one would have objected. If I had called the concept of God "wacky", some of you may have been offended. When I called the concept of "sustainability" wacky, I got a response that was the equivalent to telling a church full the same thing about God. I also described why I thought the concept was wacky. Predictions are not accurate, they assume perfect knowledge, and mandating action on imperfect knowledge is silly. Sustainability means nothing without population control, population control leads to human rights violations of the highest magnitude. I repeat my query, if we have a 300 year supply of something, doesn't that qualify as sustainable for all intents and purposes? Please, one of you go invent a 1000 year or 100000 year sustainable, cheap energy supply. Mankind would be better off, and you will be richer than Creseus (OK, I probably spelled that wrong)... until 50 years or 100 years from now when someone invents something better. Unless you agree with my friend on this board that he essentially doesn't believe in human ingenuity. That isn't even addressable it so contrary to every bit of available evidence, unless he is living in Darfour.


Lastly, everyone has a dog in this fight. I am an oilman. I derive income from finding and producing oil and gas. Climate researchers work largely for governmental entities. They seek funding, and funding is grotesquely available to study the "problem", because there is a power grab underway. Governments are no different than large corporations except that they don't have to regulated effectively or pay taxes, and if we don't want to buy what they are selling, they can force us to buy it. It wants to get bigger, like most human entities. That poll I referenced has a lot of interesting insights into what climate scientists think about the power of press and funding on their research results. Many in my industry have pointed out that Matt Simmons is an Investment Banker specializing in oil field services. By creating a scarcity scare, he commands higher valuations for the companies he finances and sells. Matt Simmons and his proselytizing about Peak Oil has made me more money than Plateau or NonPeak oil has ever made me. Go Matt! Go Peak Oil Brothers! You MIGHT be right! You MIGHT not!


It's not just money, either. Many of you have a lot invested in your value systems... to the point of hating "conservatives" whatever that term means anymore, and calling me a dick on an internet forum, for Gods sake! It is natural to support those that validate your values and attack those that do not. However, that is not an objective "care about my children's future" point of view any more than my oilman's point of view of the world, and probably much less so, since I have to be right to make money... objectively right.

Most of us would fight hard to deny that we may have been played for fools our entire lives or entire adult lives, and that are values are worthless garbage. This applies on any side of a faith-based argument. Just don't hand me this "objective observer" pap.

Who is more objective? Someone who performs research for money or someone who performs research to validate their underlying value system?

Oilman- glad to see you are aboard here and welcome. Even if most of us will disagree with you and some quite nastily, I hope you stick around. I personally value opinions that dissent mightily from mine.

Since you are in a Peakoil forum, that must mean you have some understanding of the breadth of the problem we are facing. As I have told Oil-Finder, even the most wildly optimistic reports describe a peaking of oil within a few decades.

If you read the Hirsch report issued by the DoE,

Hirsch Report

It describes the need to develop mitigation plans well in advance of the peaking of oil. This is not some report issued by us nutter butter peak oil kooks. It is a reasoned and well supported report. Though I disagree with all the mitigation plans he outlines, I agree with the premise that planning for this monumental change needs to happen now, if not 30 years ago. He also outlines the likely effects if we do not implement mitigation plans and it is not pretty.

Really the question of "Peak Oil", the concept that we will be reaching a maximum worldwide production, is over as a debate. The only question now is timing. And like I said, even if the optimists are correct, we need to make large changes now, to prepare for the potential disaster that could unfold.

So are we wide eyed tree hugging liberals with an agenda for an environmentalist socialist paradise? Not likely. If you hang out on these boards you will find a large proportion of libertarians, conservatives and even a few neo-nazis. This is not about ideology, it is about facts on the ground and how to prepare for significant change...

[skyemoor]

Hmmm. It really doesn't matter to me whether we have Peak Oil, Plateau Oil, or NotPeak Oil, whether now or in the future. I have seen the energy balance projections and they depend on economic viabilities of each component, and in no case does the sky fall.

Which energy balance projections are you referring to? We, of course, have other projections that counter your claim.



http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3439

The fact that Peak Oil concept has taken on such an important role to many of you is telling, if only to highlight a kind of catastrophic "the sky is falling" mindset.

Now are you an oilman or a psychologist?

The most interesting comment was the fellow (person?) who stated that he or she had no faith in mankind, and that it was somehow dangerous to have faith in the ingenuity of mankind.

I'm assuming you mean me (a fellow). I said nothing about having 'no faith in mankind'. That is your strawman. I did say "We've been betting on human ingenuity to provide us with cold fusion for over 3 decades. At some point we simply have to bite the bullet and make sensible choices." I don't believe it is wise to have blind faith that our high consumption lifestyle will be magically extended in perpetua by miracle oil/gas/fusion breakthroughs. I would suggest you read Jared Diamond's "Collapse: How Complex Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed" and/or Joseph Tainter's "The Collapse of Complex Societies". A number of other civilizations have had the blind faith you refer to, only to end up on the trash heap of paleoanthropology.

Wow. So, somehow, I should have more faith in Chicken Littles and politicians seeking to increase their power instead of engineers and scientists who look for technical solutions.

Funny, one could spin this in exactly the opposite direction, "Somehow I should have more faith in oil company execs, their shills, and politicians instead of engineers and scientists looking for sustainable solutions.

If Peak Oil wasn't an issue, would you think differently about "what needs to be done"? If anthropogenic greenhouse gas effects were shown conclusively to be bunk as climate drivers, would you alter your worldview?

If both were somehow hypothetically proven to be false, it would indeed alter my worldview, though other resource depletion and pollution would still be important issues. I would sooner believe that you would find it easier to preclude any future war or hunger.

You'll find few Simonians on this site, apart from the Oil-Finders and the like.

Sustainability means nothing without population control, population control leads to human rights violations of the highest magnitude.

So you consider overpopulation to be an issue? Please explain your perspective on the problem and your approach to a solution. Please note that we easily recognize attempts at Gordian Knots.

I repeat my query, if we have a 300 year supply of something, doesn't that qualify as sustainable for all intents and purposes?

I'll repeat my answer;

Sustainable Energy definition: Energy that can be produced economically and safely for all time without impacting the environment and well-being of future generations. http://www.cotswold.gov.uk/nqcontent.cfm?a_id=1484

If it is hydrocarbons you are talking about, then the widespread use of these unduly impacts the environment and hence are not sustainable.

Please, one of you go invent a 1000 year or 100000 year sustainable, cheap energy supply.

No invention necessary. Wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, wave, etc are sustainable. Cheap is a relative word; don't forget we consider external costs as well. $100/barrel oil is not cheap.

Had you seen this MIT study on US geothermal resources?

Lastly, everyone has a dog in this fight. I am an oilman. I derive income from finding and producing oil and gas.

Ok, what dog do we have in this fight? My concern is for the future of my family, community, nation, and humankind. Did you read the article on Human Discount Rate? What do you value now and what do you value in the long run?

Climate researchers work largely for governmental entities. They seek funding, and funding is grotesquely available to study the "problem", because there is a power grab underway.

I've heard this saw many times over the last year or so; since the scientists are now so overwhelming lined up behind anthropogenic climate change, the fossil fuel interests feel that have to attack the motives of scientists themselves in a last change clutching at straws.

That poll I referenced has a lot of interesting insights into what climate scientists think about the power of press and funding on their research results.

The poll you referenced is now going on 5 years old, and is therefore out of date, notwithstanding the fact it was rejected for publication by the journal "Science" (unless you believe they are somehow part of the 'conspiracy' you have referred to).

Many in my industry have pointed out that Matt Simmons is an Investment Banker specializing in oil field services. By creating a scarcity scare, he commands higher valuations for the companies he finances and sells. Matt Simmons and his proselytizing about Peak Oil has made me more money than Plateau or NonPeak oil has ever made me.

Have you even read "Twilight in the Desert"? Can you poke holes in his presentations? Otherwise, you're simply handwaving.

However, that is not an objective "care about my children's future" point of view any more than my oilman's point of view of the world, and probably much less so, since I have to be right to make money... objectively right.

Let me see if I understand you correctly. So your 'right' to make money at any cost trumps the future of other people's children's? I, for one, would not embrace such a statement, regardless of how 'objectively right' you claim to be. Indeed, I find such statements repugnant.

Society has taken steps in recent generations to consider the effects of unbridled lust for money on people and their children. We now have child labor laws, workplace safety regulations, pollution regulations, auto safety regulations, and so forth, each of which I heartily support with no regrets. And I also have a no regrets mindset with regard to peak oil transition plans and climate action plans. No one can see the future perfectly, but we can surely use the radar we have to steer our ship away from the shoals ahead.

Still waiting for your take on the Doe report and 'debunking' of Matt Simmons findings.

[thuja]

The top 3 elephant fields in the world (with EROEI ratios of 1:30) are now in decline (at rates of up to 15% per year)

What rate is the number 1 elephant field in the world currently declining at? (BTW, love the "up to 15% per year". Reminds me of those shady discount stores advertising "up to 15% OFF".)

Well I like to call them supergiants myself- but Ghawar is the granddaddy of all time producing somewhere between 4.5 and 5 mb/d (depending on your data). That's about 6 % of oil produced in the world. Talk about an elephant...

At its peak it was producing about 5.7 mb/d so there has been significant decline. Now the Aramco party line has been that they have simply scaled back production and that this is due to strategic, not geologic reasons.

It is likely that other Saudi fields are making up for lost Ghawar output. In any event the Saudis do not seem to be able to increase overall output and therefor do not act as a "swing" producer...able to make up for any sudden shocks and lost output in other areas of the world.

Is this "Scary" and "cause for concern" as I have said? You bet. My concern is over decline rates after plateau. I am hoping for a slow decline so we have more time to transition. Fast decline rates would be catastrophic...

[EnergyUnlimited]

Let me see if I understand you correctly. So your 'right' to make money at any cost trumps the future of other people's children's? I, for one, would not embrace such a statement, regardless of how 'objectively right' you claim to be. Indeed, I find such statements repugnant.

I think, you are fighting war with a windmill, skyemoor.
Making money at any cost is a pillar of our society.
It is also a dead end.
No amount of "progressive" action will change it, as long as current global civilization functions.

Ruin of this civilization will be both:
- product
- solution
to this sad state of affairs.

So there is no need to criticize this poor soul, that he is a ruthless money slave.
That is what he was thought to be after all.

Society has taken steps in recent generations to consider the effects of unbridled lust for money on people and their children. We now have child labor laws, workplace safety regulations, pollution regulations, auto safety regulations, and so forth, each of which I heartily support with no regrets.

You do, but Indians or Chinese don't.
That is why you can buy some cheap Chinese crap and climb on moral high grounds meantime.

Once our oil bonanza is over you will see again:

1. Child labor and (God forbid!) prostitution.
2. Collapse of safety at work regulations.
3. Rampant pollution in final fits of "PO mitigation by clean coal" frenzy.
4. Any remaining automobiles will strive for efficiency (in mpg terms) at expense of vehicle safety.
5. ...and so on.

...and all of these will come to US and no longer be a sole domain of some elusive Third World countries far away.
...and you (with your children) will see all of it.
So overall picture will not be pretty...

I think, you have written few survivalist books.
I wonder, how could you miss issues raised by me above?
From this what you say, it appears that you actually believe that we can still worship plenty of civilized man's hubris in societal collapse environment.

Again, I don't know what society will emerge, once all the mess is over (in any case it will be an agrarian one), but I am certain that collapse itself will involve symptoms which I have noted above... and many other symptoms...

In any case there is a good chance that this future society will be a better place to live than a current one is, but there will be a plenty of pain before we get there, though.
Entire process may take a century or two...
We will only change, once all our hubris are debunked by Nature.

[Twilight]

I have been thinking... when people are invested in a bet and have something to gain from a particular outcome, is it not natural for some cheerleading to take place? So in focusing on the watching crowd, is there not a danger of missing the race?

Peak oil has undoubtedly been co-opted by some people into their environmental and anti-staus-quo agendas, yet from the same quarter we see accusations of ownership by opposing parties, usually tied up in geopolitical agendas or profiteering. This is not isolated to any one part of the political spectrum. No-one can resist sticking their finger in that pie.

To whom does peak oil belong? Actually, to no-one. All some people are doing is taking something that is happening quite independently and inserting themselves into the picture. Like trespassers at a fundraiser or something.

Given that this is inevitable to some extent, is it fair to allow this to reflect badly upon the issue at hand? The discussion so far sounds almost as though peak oil is discredited by the wagers of those who have taken a view on it. And yet, whoever ultimately profits, the event remains in progress.

That is why I think bringing people's wishes into this is a bit silly. They are not a variable influencing the outcome. Emotional stakes and whatever one thinks of them are neither relevant nor important.

[TonyPrep]

The Non-Traditional reserves we are finding, ... These resources are trillions of barrels in size.

The projections are all over the map (i.e., Bakken = 10 to 400 billion barrels). Of course, the percentage economically and technically recoverable is the real number to consider.

And also the rate of extraction. It matters little even if a resource is the biggest ever discovered, if the rate of extraction is well below conventional fields.

Skyemoor and the other peak oilies talk a good game about sustainability and GHG's etc., but it's mostly just rank hypocrisy like Al Gore. They're all living gas-guzzling lifestyles, and investing in oil stocks etc. What kind of car do you drive Skyemoor?

I'm a bit surprised to see you make wild assumptions like this, JD.

I'm not surprised, though it enhances JD's case not at all. Even if true, it's completely irrelevant to figuring out the impact of peak and how to come to terms with it.

[TonyPrep]

You never address scale.

Tony, I am more than willing to do a hundred page thread with you on the topic of scale at any time. I only have one condition: that you formulate the problem of scale for me -- tell me what human beings won't be able to do -- in one sentence.

Replace fossil fuels for all of their uses, on scales that business as usual would dictate, on a timescale that mitigates the impact of fossil fuel declines and that doesn't impact our habitat for the worse.

[TonyPrep]

Hmmm. It really doesn't matter to me whether we have Peak Oil, Plateau Oil, or NotPeak Oil, whether now or in the future. I have seen the energy balance projections and they depend on economic viabilities of each component, and in no case does the sky fall. The fact that Peak Oil concept has taken on such an important role to many of you is telling, if only to highlight a kind of catastrophic "the sky is falling" mindset. The most interesting comment was the fellow (person?) who stated that he or she had no faith in mankind, and that it was somehow dangerous to have faith in the ingenuity of mankind. Wow. So, somehow, I should have more faith in Chicken Littles and politicians seeking to increase their power instead of engineers and scientists who look for technical solutions.

That's some convoluted logic in that paragraph. I don't know what energy balances you've seen but every examination I've seen for alternatives, either singly or in combination, falls down due to problems of scale, time to transition, side-effects, resource constraints (for harnessing said alternative) or wishful thinking. Furthermore, your characterisation of everyone who doesn't take your position is an insult to many who have done far more work that you in trying to understand our situation. And my comment on placing faith in mankind's ingenuity to sort out every problem has nothing to do with placing faith in something else; I always suggest doing what we know we can do, not what we don't know we can do - this requires no faith.

The Dude... (Love the movie and the name)... Our friends the Japanese will screw with the Clathrates, just like they do the whales. The US is spending a big portion of its DOE research dollars on Clathrates, and some fellow just came up with a way of mapping them via sulfate geochemistry that is supposedly very cheap. Of course, figuring out how to capture the methane as it sublimates from ice to gas is the trick, and certainly screwing with the pressure/temperature regime is risky. Kind of like the first Nukes, where the possibility existed for setting off a global chain reaction. That must have been a butt clencher day in NM for those in the know!

Again, you ask us to put faith in human ingenuity to avoid catastrophic effects of harnessing clathrates, rather than instead do something different from busines as usual. This is most certainly a faith based position.

I have read about the conjectures about Clathrate drivers in the past, and it makes some sense. We see a lot of catastrophic climate change in the geological record. 100,000 year on up volcanoes will also be good candidates (10 times plus the historical human greenhouse gas load released in one eruption). If we want a civilization that lasts more than 100,000 years (current set up is only 100 years old at best), we better be able to deal with natural phenomena that is truly catastrophic.

Not really. You appear to be suggesting that because we will not be able to deal with the naturally occurring catastrophic events that beset the earth from time to time, we shouldn't do anything about near term probabilities that we could do something about. This is a false argument because it implies that we should never alter our behaviours, since bad things always happen. We should be concerned with near term climate change that our behaviour exacerbates, because it's obvious that such change will affect, and is affecting, our habitat for the people that now live in it, or for their children.

If Peak Oil wasn't an issue, would you think differently about "what needs to be done"? If anthropogenic greenhouse gas effects were shown conclusively to be bunk as climate drivers, would you alter your worldview?

As we are living unsustainably (currently requiring about 1.3 earths, set to markedly increase with the growth of the BRIC economies), it wouldn't now alter my world view much. If we continue to use resources beyond their renewal rate, and without regard for the impacts, then we're screwed anyway; to rely on avoiding the problems in our lifetimes, leaving it to future generations, is a faith based position.

If I had called a tree "wacky", no one would have objected. If I had called the concept of God "wacky", some of you may have been offended. When I called the concept of "sustainability" wacky, I got a response that was the equivalent to telling a church full the same thing about God.

Not at all. You got a reasonable answer. If you are not concerned with sustainability then that is up to you but why call those that are concerned, wacky? It's a perfectly acceptable position to want to try to figure out a way for one's descendents to live good quality lives.

Predictions are not accurate, they assume perfect knowledge, and mandating action on imperfect knowledge is silly.

And yet you demand inaction on imperfect knowledge. Are you saying that our way of life is sustainable for the next few decades and that the growth of the BRIC economies will have no effect on that position? How do you know, without perfect knowledge?

Sustainability means nothing without population control, population control leads to human rights violations of the highest magnitude.

Sustainability includes a stable population; who has said anything else? And "control" can come in many ways, only some of which violate human rights (which are rights that we, ourselves, decide on, anyway; they aren't a physical law). Even if the solution that do violate current rights, are you saying that humans are incapable of deciding on actions that may have some undesirable consequences but have an overall benefit? If so, I could well agree with you there.

I repeat my query, if we have a 300 year supply of something, doesn't that qualify as sustainable for all intents and purposes? Please, one of you go invent a 1000 year or 100000 year sustainable, cheap energy supply. Mankind would be better off, and you will be richer than Creseus (OK, I probably spelled that wrong)... until 50 years or 100 years from now when someone invents something better.

That's a faith based position. What is the something we have 300 years supply of, and how do you know for certain?

Unless you agree with my friend on this board that he essentially doesn't believe in human ingenuity. That isn't even addressable it so contrary to every bit of available evidence, unless he is living in Darfour.

You are perverting my post. I said relying on human ingenuity to solve every problem is a faith based position. Where is the available evidence that humans have always solved every problem in the past perfectly? How do you know that every solution hasn't resulted in unintended other problems? I've often read such undiluted faith and often read of lists of problems that weren't solved or that had unintended consequences.

Yours is a faith based position and you ridicule those that suggest we should take a more rational approach.

Lastly, everyone has a dog in this fight. I am an oilman. I derive income from finding and producing oil and gas. Climate researchers work largely for governmental entities. They seek funding, and funding is grotesquely available to study the "problem", because there is a power grab underway.

Hmm, are you saying that every climate scientist is under control of some organisation that has a specific interest in validating AGW? This seems nonsense to me. The US government has only recently acknowledged AGW, yet thier main science bodies have long acknowledged it. Governments most certainly don't want AGW to be true because that means having to do something about it. Yet you are claiming that the few scientists who support your opinions are the ones that should be believed.

Many in my industry have pointed out that Matt Simmons is an Investment Banker specializing in oil field services. By creating a scarcity scare, he commands higher valuations for the companies he finances and sells. Matt Simmons and his proselytizing about Peak Oil has made me more money than Plateau or NonPeak oil has ever made me. Go Matt! Go Peak Oil Brothers! You MIGHT be right! You MIGHT not!

Who are these people that have pointed this out? So because one person may benefit from pushing energy problems (though I'm not sure Matt does; this has been discussed a few times here), we should instead believe those that have a different view based on their making a living from that different view? This is illogical. Make your arguments and let's see if they stand up, by themselves, regardless of who gains or loses from being right.

It's not just money, either. Many of you have a lot invested in your value systems

I can't speak for others but this is completely wrong, in my case. What you may understand my value system to be has changed markedly in the last few years, due to looking carefully at the climate change and peak resources arguments. I would still love to read a good argument, with sound evidence, that allows be to ignore both issues; it would make my life one hell of a lot easier - and I'm all for easy living. But all I hear is faith.