[Outcast_Searcher]

I never realized that I had an "ilk". Cool. Anyway all I did was divide the amount that is supposed to be left by every vehicle on the planet at 20 mpg and came up with 210,000 miles.

Now I know I am not all that scientific, but my "ilk" likes to look at things as they are. As Stephen Colbert says, "reality has a liberal bias".

There is nothing negative about "ilk". I like the word. There is this thing called "Google" on the internet where such things can be looked up.

My issue with the doomer "ilk" is that "as things are" isn't just that the glass is half full, it's that it will soon be empty, the contents can never be replaced, etc. (No matter how many times reality shows that isn't generally true).

So my issue is how the "what we have left" is computed. As though we'll never find any more and as though there will never be another breakthrough to make what we find go farther, or make the amount that can be extracted at a profit a higher percentage of what is available.

Now, if you want to call that "looking at things as they are" -- feel free, but it has a really, really terrible track record.

At least moderates have a long history of generally "moderate" conditions conforming to their viewpoint.

And finally, politically, I'm a moderate. I don't like the antics of the extremes of EITHER side of the political spectrum. And I'm just shocked that a liberal would say reality has a bias that conforms to his viewpoint.

[kanon]

And I'm just shocked that a liberal would say reality has a bias that conforms to his viewpoint.

Everyone has a bias that says their viewpoint reflects reality. It seems few people consider "reality" outside the scope of their own situation and beliefs, which is not changed by being a "moderate." Please address whether 210,000 miles is accurate given the known facts and then opine on how our ingenuity will extend BAU past apparent limits.

Here is something else to chew on. Oil majors fail to find reserves to counter falling output "Oil executives play down worries about the sector's fundamental health. They say lower production reflects an increased focus on returns, rather than output for its own sake, while falling reserves figures can be misleading."

These are not the factoids we are looking for -- move along.

[ROCKMAN]

kanon - "They say lower production reflects an increased focus on returns, rather than output for its own sake, while falling reserves figures can be misleading." been a while since I made this point so you might not have seen it. When I started at Mobil Oil 40 years ago my first mentor explained PO to me in great detail. Naturally we didn't have the term "peak oil" then. Actually isn't commonly used in the oil patch today. It was referred to as the "reserve replacement problem". A different metric then rate of return, "profit", earnings per share, etc. It was simply the difficulty replacing produced reserves volumes with newly developed reserves. So in that sense not a bbls of oil per day metric but related to in in the sense that new fields had to be discovered to replace depleting reserve volumes as well as declining production rates.

And the source makes sense: it was the geologists and geophysicists that were tasked with finding new BIG reserves for Big Oil. Small discoveries weren't going to do the trick given how much oil Big Oil produced every year. So yes: 4 decades ago the struggle to deal with depletion was obvious to those who had the job to deal with the problem. The only difference today is that the public now has an eye on the game.

[kanon]

So yes: 4 decades ago the struggle to deal with depletion was obvious to those who had the job to deal with the problem. The only difference today is that the public now has an eye on the game.

This is the main reason I like analysis like the point in this thread. Saying "the known reserves show there are 210,000 miles of driving left" gives a clear picture to the observer. I have read on the "peak oil" topic for some years now and the main point I always keep in mind is that no one really knows the facts. It is quite obvious there is no reason for the oil producers to accurately report their reserves, so the "garbage in -> garbage out" rule applies to most of the scholarly type peak oil analysis. Even if someone gets it right, how do we know which expert that is? Thus, the kind of pictograph we have here is quite valuable, IMHO. Another reason I like it is that if the meme catches on, it may force some actual facts to be released.

In contrast, there is this site Is Obama telling the truth about U.S. oil reserves? which portrays endless oil reserves, but completely ignores EROEI and production costs.

This kind of propaganda is actually harmful because it is completely unrealistic, but there are those who will give it credence because they want a "balanced" view.

[Revi]

I would say so. It seems like the whole bottom of that pyramid is pure illusion.

[Keith_McClary]

U.S. driving surges to all-time record
June 24, 2015

Low gas prices are spurring Americans to drive more — nearly 990 billion miles in the first four months of the year, an all-time record.

The Federal Highway Administration said Wednesday that Americans drove 987.8 billion miles in the first four months of the year — up 3.9 percent over last year — to top the previous record of 965.5 billion miles that was set in the first four months of 2007.

And in the month of April, drivers logged 3.9 percent more miles — 10.2 billion — to 267.9 billion miles, an all-time record. The April estimates show that the nation’s driving has increased steadily for 14 consecutive months.

[Outcast_Searcher]

I would say so. It seems like the whole bottom of that pyramid is pure illusion.

Because, as we know, no new oil deposits are EVER discovered. Nor have they been for at least 50 years. Therefore we can rationally conclude that no more oil deposits will EVER be discovered. Period.

If you think the number is high, that would be a reasonable point of discussion. Implying the number should be zero is not, outside the "all doom all the time" echo chamber.

[Beery1]

And finally, politically, I'm a moderate. I don't like the antics of the extremes of EITHER side of the political spectrum. And I'm just shocked that a liberal would say reality has a bias that conforms to his viewpoint.

Anyone who calls someone a liberal yet claims to be a moderate probably isn't.

[Outcast_Searcher]

And finally, politically, I'm a moderate. I don't like the antics of the extremes of EITHER side of the political spectrum. And I'm just shocked that a liberal would say reality has a bias that conforms to his viewpoint.

Anyone who calls someone a liberal yet claims to be a moderate probably isn't.

Right. Because I never call a conservative paper like the WSJ a "conservative" paper, and I never criticize far right wing politics like science denial and supporting the war machine.

Except that I DO. (Feel free to search my posts).

Your assumptions may well say more about your biases than mine. I am a libertarian who freely admits (again, feel free to search my posts) to leaning right on economic issues and left on social issues.

So shoot me for failing to fit into the normal two party system, and for calling the extremes of BOTH sides as I see them, conservative and liberal labels included.

[DesuMaiden]

Even if are on our on last cars, as long as peak oil doesn't cause a die off, we should be fine.