The End of The End: How the Peak Oil Movement Failed

[Xenophobe]

If the message put accross was more realistic, i.e drip feed the decline in living standards, educating people to reject consumer products that have a stunted life, live near to work, use local shops, buy locally made products etc, rather than the "mad max" type of scenario that many associate with peak oil.

It is too late. EV and PHEV transport means we can have our roads, our suburbia, our cruising the boulevard on Saturday night, bench racing our performance EVs at the local burger drive through...its just too late. We can live 20 miles from work, or even 50 with a small improvement in battery technology (which is right around the corner of course as demonstrated by this type of working prototype Deleted).

The first phase of the decline has already started of course, with the economy refusing to continue to grow as everyone has expected it to, this economic decline is being blamed on other things of course so the lack of cheap plentiful oil is not really noticed.

Currently, growth isn't being called a decline by anyone except those who have hopes for one in the future. Which they will get, of course, recessions are as much a part of the business cycle as growth is.

Information on our current post recession growth in the US.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/e ... utlook.htm

[dolanbaker]

EV's only provide part of the solution, as in they disconnect oil from personal transportation, by that I mean you don't directly place oil derived fuel into the vehicle.

But you still need oil elsewhere in the life cycle of the vehicles, extraction of raw materials, during production, possibly in the generation of the electricity used to charge it. Coal and gas will also provide the electricity for a few years then what?

Econonic cycles, During previous downswings there was always some reinvestment with expected growth and when the fuel was available so came the growth!

This time it appears to be different, as in when the growth tried to start, the price of fuel (mainly oil) rapidly rises and "cuts off growth at the pass" the same can be said for raw materials and food. All of these factors stiffle casual consumption of "consumer goods" as many cut back and just buy the essentials.

Growth needs cheap oil and it ain't there!

[Xenophobe]

But you still need oil elsewhere in the life cycle of the vehicles, extraction of raw materials, during production, possibly in the generation of the electricity used to charge it. Coal and gas will also provide the electricity for a few years then what?

You need fuels for all SORTS of things, sure. Good thing that demand destruction because of demand destruction in transport because of EV use will allow us to keep it around that much longer for all the real purposes for which it is so much better suited.

This time it appears to be different, as in when the growth tried to start, the price of fuel (mainly oil) rapidly rises and "cuts off growth at the pass" the same can be said for raw materials and food. All of these factors stiffle casual consumption of "consumer goods" as many cut back and just buy the essentials.

Growth needs cheap oil and it ain't there!

Cheap crude disappeared in 1970. We've done some good growing, both in real crude prices and GDP between 1970 and 2010, so I'll wait until we have a little more evidence in hand before drawing a definitive conclusion I think. Seems to me that growth and increasing prices of crude track each other....so its reasonable to expect both.

[pstarr]

Xeno, did you actually read Rapier's critique of Hubbert?. Rapier created three impossible scenarios that do not mirror known oil field behavior except SA, and SA does not obey the linearization because SA constrained it's production. For a good tutorial read memmel's response to Rapier.

As for USGS WPA 2000, those rosy assumption have long been demolished at the Oil Drum and here. Assumed discoveries by region have long since fallen behind the USGS projections

Link

[Xenophobe]

Xeno, did you actually read Rapier's critique of Hubbert?. Rapier created three impossible scenarios that do not mirror known oil field behavior except SA, and SA does not obey the linearization because SA constrained it's production. For a good tutorial read memmel's response to Rapier.

I read all sorts of things. Rapiers work stands on its own. Go debate himdeleted

As for USGS WPA 2000, those rosy assumption have long been demolished at the Oil Drum and here.

vicious ad hom deleted

Assumed discoveries by region have long since fallen behind the USGS projections

See what I mean. The USGS WPA 2000 did not assume discoveries by region. I recommend you read the report yourself.

And considering the references you provided, it sure sounds like they didn't either.

[pstarr]

Xeno, did you actually read Rapier's critique of Hubbert?. Rapier created three impossible scenarios that do not mirror known oil field behavior except SA, and SA does not obey the linearization because SA constrained it's production. For a good tutorial read memmel's response to Rapier.

I read all sorts of things. Rapiers work stands on its own. Go debate him, deleted

I am debating you. Hubbert was correct. TOD endorses nothing.

As for USGS WPA 2000, those rosy assumption have long been demolished at the Oil Drum and here.

deleted

Assumed discoveries by region have long since fallen behind the USGS projections

See what I mean. The USGS WPA 2000 did not assume discoveries by region. I recommend you read the report yourself.

And considering the references you provided, it sure sounds like they didn't either.

I will just repeat what I wrote earlier, what you failed to challenge then:

WEO 2010 report is based on hype and expectations that would be considered "optimistic" if they weren't so completely deceptive. The truth is a tragic political lie.

The "yet to be developed" includes ultra-deep water (still mostly non-producing) and fields like Kashagan in Siberia discovered in 1998 and once hailed by Time Magazine as the new "black gold" and thought to contain 60 billion barrels. Now we know it contains a few billions barrels of crap and is too difficult to produce. So many of these remote difficult fields have proven lies. See Anwar's 90% reserve reduction for the latest

The "yet to be discovered" is based on USGS WPA 2000 the rosy prediction of expected 3345 billion barrels to be discovered between 1996 and 2030. This projection is already woefully wrong, as new discovery have fallen far far far short of the expected trends. Not for lack of exploration. See the "creaming curve"

[Xenophobe]

I read all sorts of things. Rapiers work stands on its own. Go debate him, deleted

I am debating you. Hubbert was correct. TOD endorses nothing.

Hubbert predicted that natural gas production in the US would be 5-6 TCF/year in 2009. According to the EIA it was more like 25 TCF.

deleted

The "yet to be discovered" is based on USGS WPA 2000 the rosy prediction of expected 3345 billion barrels to be discovered between 1996 and 2030. This projection is already woefully wrong, as new discovery have fallen far far far short of the expected trends. Not for lack of exploration. See the "creaming curve"

That information was from the IHS. Says so on the graph. And it doesn't say anything about yet to be discovered, its about changes in recovery factor. If you wish to discuss USGS information, I recommend you use USGS information. Oh wait....Saturday night....heck...any night....sorry....I know whats going on now.

[pstarr]

I read all sorts of things. Rapiers work stands on its own. Go debate him, and please don't pretend that the HL method is valid when it obviously isn't.

I am debating you. Hubbert was correct. TOD endorses nothing.

Hubbert predicted that natural gas production in the US would be 5-6 TCF/year in 2009. According to the EIA it was more like 25 TCF.

How many more orders of magnitude of percentage error would you like before you consider an answer incorrect?

Let me get right? You are unable to defend your contention that Defreyes's linearization is not a valid method of analysis because M. King Hubbert was not aware of some US gas reserves?

that is lame?

The "yet to be discovered" is based on USGS WPA 2000 the rosy prediction of expected 3345 billion barrels to be discovered between 1996 and 2030. This projection is already woefully wrong, as new discovery have fallen far far far short of the expected trends. Not for lack of exploration. See the "creaming curve"

That information was from the IHS. Says so on the graph. And it doesn't say anything about yet to be discovered, its about changes in recovery factor. If you wish to discuss USGS information, I recommend you use USGS information. Oh wait....Saturday night....heck...any night....sorry....I know whats going on now.

wrong chart. sorry.

[Xenophobe]

Let me get right? You are unable to defend your contention that Defreyes's linearization is not a valid method of analysis because M. King Hubbert was not aware of some US gas reserves?

A) Hubbert was not correct, example provided.
B) HL doesn't work even in theoretically perfect examples, as demonstrated by Rapier at TOD.

[sameu]

Cheap crude disappeared in 1970. We've done some good growing, both in real crude prices and GDP between 1970 and 2010, so I'll wait until we have a little more evidence in hand before drawing a definitive conclusion I think. Seems to me that growth and increasing prices of crude track each other....so its reasonable to expect both.

are you serious?

[pstarr]

Cheap crude disappeared in 1970. We've done some good growing, both in real crude prices and GDP between 1970 and 2010, so I'll wait until we have a little more evidence in hand before drawing a definitive conclusion I think. Seems to me that growth and increasing prices of crude track each other....so its reasonable to expect both.

are you serious?

It's Xeno's tired shtick, kind of like the lastest Woody Allen move. Neither is cute anymore.

Xeno has has a collection of "bad predictions" and "previous peaks" that he drags out to impress his fans. Just like Woody.

[eXpat]

The most significant contribution your intellect has made to this site yet. Good pictures with no relation to technical issues.

Ha! look who´s talking! Go crawl back under your rock and be quiet.

[pstarr]

Cheap crude disappeared in 1970.

Only to reappear in the 1980's. We know precisely why crude prices exploded in the 1970's. And a few of the bright ones here understand why prices are pushing $90 now. It has nothing to do with "speculation" That no longer holds water. Or oil

[Revi]

Oil is cheap for some people, pricey for others. I am driving an SUV that gets 12 mpg and am beginning to see what it's like for a lot of people. I can't go anywhere because it costs so much to get there. Driving around town is even expensive. It's like gas suddenly costs $6.50 a gallon. My little truck was smushed, and there aren't any like it available. I can see why people get so upset over gas prices now.

[pstarr]

Cheap crude disappeared in 1970.

Only to reappear in the 1980's.

A single datapoint does not a trend establish.

Single data point? Kidding?

I can post data and charts all day.


http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/97xx/doc9706/Figure2-7.gif

http://www.interacademycouncil.net/File.aspx?id=12126

http://www.tradersnarrative.com/wp-cont ... 0chart.png

http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/ ... _Chart.jpg

http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif

[Mesuge]

My little truck was smushed, and there aren't any like it available. I can see why people get so upset over gas prices now.

I gather those "light" versions of VW pickups (and japanese ver.) on the market in Mexico, Brazil and the rest of Central/South America are banned from the US market, right?

[Hawkcreek]

My gosh- a stake through the heart of the myth of peak oil...why that must mean that it has solved the problem as we easily transition to an electric based world...

Who said anything about easy? Heck, who said doing something worth doing was ever easy? The good news in all of this is that the roads and parking and home refueling is set up and running already, and all those ICE suckers paid for it! Just hand out the EVs and lets get with the program!

But the weird thing is, that oil prices continue to rise. Economists and oil executives are seeing ever escalating oil prices. If Peak Oil has been solved, this shouldn't be happening.

Incorrect. Peak oil was supposed to cause oil supply issues, prices are certainly one of those, but so were shortages and rationing. Real crude prices began climbing when the US stopped being the global swing producer around 1970. That certainly wasn't a global peak oil, the price rise happened because of all sorts of other things, most particularly OPEC becoming the swing producer. Everything since then has just been a continuation of the ever upward trend in real crude prices.

Solving peak oil is a man by man, woman by woman, county/country/regional issue and some of us solve it faster than others. I've got a pretty good solution going right now. Volt owners have a better one. If you own a V10 powered monster truck, you haven't solved peak oil yet, and I don't know what it will take to make you WANT a peak oil solution. But I do know that NOW, just within the past MONTH, I can SHOW you that solution. I walk with you down to the Chevy dealership and have a conversation. Maybe you choose not to solve your own peak oil problem today, or next month, or next year. But sometime, under some conditions, you will. And this is good! Why aren't more peakers rushing out to solve their own personal peak issues?

I don't understand. I thought the Volt saved us. Why are they predicting 5 $ gallon gas?

Who cares? If you own a Volt, let it go to $10! Thats the entire point! The rest of the world gets peak oil, and YOU get peak oil solution!

This kind of sounds like what some of the doomers once claimed - that those with enough money wouldn't be hurt by PO nearly as much as the poor.
I have delayed (delayed, not solved) my peak oil problem by buying a 50 mpg VW Jetta TDI. But I don't see any of my neighbors being able to afford doing so. They drive less and spend less on non essentials to allow them money to drive to work. Some of them are unemployed because of the same reason - the economy is retracting.
In my view, peak oil is important and will be seen as a primary driver of the gradual decline in living standards of everyone in the world. Maybe Mad Max in slow motion, but it will still end in nothing good. There is no Peak Oil Movement - there is a Peak Oil Awareness that has not stopped for those who are aware of conditions outside their own enclave.

[Ludi]

This kind of sounds like what some of the doomers once claimed - that those with enough money wouldn't be hurt by PO nearly as much as the poor.

Some still claim it. Just like folks who still have a good job or independent income aren't hurt by the economic problems, those with plenty of money will be the last to be hurt significantly by peak oil. They will be fine, and will always be able to claim everything is fine and problems are solved. They have solved their own problems by having money. The other 98% of us are irrelevant, perhaps.

[vtsnowedin]

This kind of sounds like what some of the doomers once claimed - that those with enough money wouldn't be hurt by PO nearly as much as the poor.

Some still claim it. Just like folks who still have a good job or independent income aren't hurt by the economic problems, those with plenty of money will be the last to be hurt significantly by peak oil. They will be fine, and will always be able to claim everything is fine and problems are solved. They have solved their own problems by having money. The other 98% of us are irrelevant, perhaps.

The rich may think we are irrelevant but as things decline they will find they need us. They need us to produce and buy all the things the corporations they own the controlling shares of make. Without a market to sell to they would not be rich. Nor can they sell to the government unless we can pay the tax bill to cover the cost plus interest. And then as things decline yet further there will more then likely be resource wars to be fought that we and our rich cannot afford to lose. They will be fought by men on foot armed with rifles as all the high tech Kevlar covered drones will become too expensive by then. All the rich gathered together wouldn't make a full division so they will have to find a way to get our children to step to the line and fight. The rich will have a hard time adjusting from living in Beverly hills with its dedicated police force and other amenities to a third world existence behind hacienda walls with private guards providing security.
A king with a ton of gold and no soldiers will find that he can't carry the gold by himself anymore then he can stop the incoming tide.

[americandream]

I don't know who is the more naive. Peak Oil doomers who actually believe that they see warning signals of a capitalism, which is in ebullient expansionary mode, on the brink of imminent collapse, or denialists who believe that this dog and pony show has a future of any sort, Singularity devices included.