>There are no "peak Oil rulers".
Reading your posts, it seems you think you're the PO ruler.
Just keep telling yourself that, maybe one day you'll believe it.
For the rest of us, we already know ther there no peakoil rulers.
And no where in my post did I say there were any peakoil 'rulers'.
Hurry and catch up will you?
There are only proponents on either side of the discussion.
Some are listened to more than the others. These are the leaders.
The gist of what those of us who think PO will be a serious issue revolves solely around the work of others to be sure,
by the way, skeptics and 'peak oil is now' types all agree PO is a serious issue.
but at the core, we see the numbers adding up to one conclusion. Peak is very near to now.
The IEA sees the numbers going up. At a pretty fast rate. 11mbpd increase in 10 years. Most peakers don't bother reading IEA or EIA reports, and they certainly don't compare them to prior years. They probably don't even know where to look to find the data. http://omrpublic.iea.org/archiveresults ... full+issue
So the numbers don't say peak oil is now. The supply numbers can never say peak oil is near.
They can only say, with uncertainty, peak oil was 10 years ago. And todays numbers don't, they say we're hitting all time highs.
We have had a fairly impressive price rise in crude during the last 10 years and specifically the last 5-6.
Repeat the same 'reason' as everyone else, get the same response - There have been serveral impressive prices rises in history. None were due to peak oil. Look for a different indicator.
>During that time production has struggled along a statistically perfect plateau.
No, the IEA says it's going up fast. Look at the archive link I've given you. I spose I'm going to have to draw the graph for you, because you sure as hell aren't.
Also we've had price rises with falls in world supply before, and they weren't peak oil. Look for another indicator.
Arguing one way or another and playing I told you so over a few hundred thousand barrels a day is downright childish. Its also not very scientific.
Well stop doing it then if you think that.
There is and always has been a measurable disparity in production numbers from the different agencies so arguing about it is moot. Using it as an "I told you so" thesis is shortsighted at best.
Erm , where in my posts do I say the EIA data is inferior or better to the IEA data? Your just cooking this insinulation up.
There is factual data to show that the major oilfields around the globe are at peak or in decline.
I trust my industry insider friends who have worked and overseen the reactivation of old fields more than I trust a random peakoiler who presents no evidence.
KSA admits 4-6% and the charts available over at TOD concerning water levels are eye opening.
For 100 years there's been some chart, which if you read way too much into it, your gonna get 'peakoil is now'. They've been wrong for 100 years.
Find a different indicator.
Its become very evident that discovery is of mostly costly deep water oil.
Oil is extremely cheap. Until costs go above $10000 a barrel, we don't need to worry about cost. Since you're an airline pilot you can post the maths to show exactly why this is so.
Most discovery is reserve growth in existing oil fields by the way. We would peaked deceades ago if the reserves of saudi etc hadn't grown year on year every year for decades.
These discoveries will be long in coming with production and they will deplete rapidly as that is the present economic reality when it comes to DW oil.
Oilfinder has already listed plenty of new oil discoverys, with much more being found than our current demand. Installation of wells takes about 10-15 years max. The industry knows this.
Great, here's an airline pilot who has the future sight of god, who can see at a glance all the DW wells in the world will deplete quick. Anyone believe you God?
No matter what you believe there is very good reason to distrust several OPEC nations reserve estimates. Here again time will tell
Absolutely. The world over, for all history, reserve estimates have been too low. It's a safe bet to think current OPEC nations reserves are too low today.
Even in the face of global recession we continue to increase demand and where this new production to meet that demand will come from is very problematic.
It's already sorted for the next 20 years. The anglo american majors moved into the middle east 10 years ago. Huge quantitys of oil from this campaign will make a new bulk of the worlds supply for the next 20 years easy.
The IEA is telling you in their latest world oil overview that they do not know where a significant proportion of future demand requirements is going to come from.
I haven't read that. What I've read from oil authoritys is that it's all coverd for the next 20 years.
We need to find a whole lot more oil and very soon to make that prediction work. Realistically its not likely coming.
That's because it's already come. The 2001 middle east oil bonanza, plus loads of extremely cheap ( i.e. <$1000 a barrel oil ) listed in oilfinders >60 pages of oil discoverys.
Some of their more corny predictions are not coming to fruition either yet the cornies never seem to bring that up either.
What are these predictions? We predict increasing world oil supply. In 2010 we were right, the all time high vidicated our postion of 100% correctness over 100 years, vs the 0% correctness of the 'peak oil is now' gang.
We'd bring it up if we knew what you were taking about. Can you be specific about what this failed prediction was?
Those here who believe new highs in production are coming...significantly above where we are now....really have nothing to base that on except blind faith.
I've spoken to head oil engineers and insiders personally. They are confindent the production from the new fields of the 2001 middle east oil bonanza will cope with all the suppply demands the world can throw at it for many years. My faith is in them, not some group that have refused to look for indicators and have cried wolf for 100 years and been wrong everytime.
They might have been a bit off on the timing, but I think they got the trends right.
What by 100 years? Dont you ever look at the history of your cult? The 2005 peakers were off the mark 1999 peakers, who were off the mark 1995 peakers etc... all the way back to around 1910.
They got nothing right.
'd say that cornies suffer more from a belief syndrome and a denial of overall trends.
I'd say you do too. It's nonsense.
The trend has been up, and at a decent rate up over the last decade. IEA says 11mpbd in 10 years.
Failure to digest that data due to the belief or normalcy bias is what drives the differences we see here.
At last, we agree on something.
Claiming every war of the 20th century was about oil is historically inaccurate and naive. I suggest you read some history books or take some college courses on 20th century history.
Riiight. Who are you talking to? Cos I don't see any posts that claim all wars in the 20th century were about oil.>Ah, the standard corny argument. Past = this, therfore future also = this.
It's called scientific method.
Ah the standard POisNow method. Some aspect of Past = always this
, therfore immediate future of this aspect = different
What a great method peakoilers have used for the last 100 years.
Now what was the defintion of having the same start everytime, getting the same result everytime, but expecting a different result everytime?
Madness. How fitting.