[Xenophobe]

I see you've met our current resident one-trick-cornies, not as good with the original thought as JD once was but they're all we can muster these days I guess.

How can he have "met" anyone when even the comments offering him encouragement are perfunctorily erased?

I remember one time erasing non-spam comments from a posting at my blog site by someone that was irritating me which is orders of magnitude less than the number of comments that have been erased at TheOilDrum.com. I can't remember the context or who it was. I don't know whether comments are erased on PeakOil.com or not.

Really? At least a portion of our conversation on this website has disappeared since last night. I've had entire book reviews wiped out, and single word answers to honest questions. Same thing happens at TOD of course, just like it was at old latoc. Very few people confuse the fear mongering of peak oil with science.

. But science is really a full contact sport and if you can't defend yourself too bad. The underling message is that the real scientific truth will eventually emerge because it always does.

This is an internet forum, not a place where science is done. Which is one of the comments I alluded to last night which has already disappeared. Around here 2+2 is allowed to equal 5 anytime the censors want it to.

[WebHubbleTelescope]

This is an internet forum, not a place where science is done. Which is one of the comments I alluded to last night which has already disappeared. Around here 2+2 is allowed to equal 5 anytime the censors want it to.

Sure, science can get done here. It is really in the form of exchange of ideas.

A part of the reason that I edited my posts together into book form was so that they wouldn't arbitrarily disappear. Sites like imageshack and others don't work that reliably (which is different from censoring) so you have to learn to live with it.

[Xenophobe]

This is an internet forum, not a place where science is done. Which is one of the comments I alluded to last night which has already disappeared. Around here 2+2 is allowed to equal 5 anytime the censors want it to.

Sure, science can get done here. It is really in the form of exchange of ideas.

How does that happen when some posters aren't even allowed to post theirs? FreddyH has some wonderful heuristics which have been specifically excluded from the conversation, both here and at TOD. Not much of an exchange of ideas when the censors design the echochamber.

A part of the reason that I edited my posts together into book form was so that they wouldn't arbitrarily disappear. Sites like imageshack and others don't work that reliably (which is different from censoring) so you have to learn to live with it.

Learn to live with it...pretty much that says it all. And don't ever make the mistake in thinking that anything other than the APPROVED message will last even the night. Latoc used to periodically erase entire chunks of the website to take advantage of the goldfish attention span of peakers. Not as bad here, but if I recall correctly this place has blown away entire sections, usually attributed to a cranky mod or two.

In in the end you're right, you do the work elsewhere to avoid the censorship, accidental in the form of hardware crashes and such, or the more run of the mill intentional type.

[WebHubbleTelescope]

How does that happen when some posters aren't even allowed to post theirs? FreddyH has some wonderful heuristics which have been specifically excluded from the conversation, both here and at TOD. Not much of an exchange of ideas when the censors design the echochamber.

The Hutter http://www.trendlines.ca site looks like a membership-fee access arrangement. I don't think that is the best strategy for open exchange of ideas and in particular open science. I would like to see his heuristics but not that way.

The internet is still shaking out what the best approaches are. I am particular to the http://AzimuthProject.org kind of approach.

EDIT: Hutter has a free area, and this link is interesting on what he calls regular conventional oil. It looks like he does a pretty good accounting but his future predictions contain all this additional fine structure which seems impossible to predict.
http://www.trendlines.ca/free/peakoil/s ... os.htm#rco

[Xenophobe]

EDIT: Hutter has a free area, and this link is interesting on what he calls regular conventional oil. It looks like he does a pretty good accounting but his future predictions contain all this additional fine structure which seems impossible to predict.
http://www.trendlines.ca/free/peakoil/s ... os.htm#rco

Once apon a time he brought his ideas and concepts to both here and TOD. Got banned from TOD first I think, got banned here in the summer of 08.

It isn't science when well armed opponents are excluded.

[WebHubbleTelescope]

Hutter actually does a good job in cataloguing the constituent components. If you have an issue with something like biofuels you can quicky see its fractional effect. He has a good mini-history of conventional crude predictions as well.

[mididoctors]

By how much would the extraction rates of unconventional oil (sands perhaps shale oil etc) need to be increased by to seriously effect the "curve" in the next 30-50yrs?

Very good question and one that we can work out. Take a case that we need to make up for a missing 30 million barrels a day of globally produced oil due to depletion of conventional in the next 40 years. If the Canadian flow today is about 1 million barrel per day at about 0.01% proportional extraction rate then we need to up that by 30 times to 0.3%. This means that eventually we will get to an efficiency that is only around 10 times less than extracting from the average conventional crude reservoir.

So it is a matter of believing that the oil sands infrastructure can support a 30 times greater processing throughput. The proportional extraction rate is currently low at 0.01% for a reason. It requires natural gas and water as an input so everything has to scale with the effort. This isn't 30%, it is 30x which is a 3000% increase.

This is of course mitigated when and if we also do something similar with oil shale and Orinoco.

Which of the cornucopians on this message board is willing to prove that this will happen?

thats 5-6 doublings in 40yrs about 12-15% growth rate in global oil sand production

what's the current growth rate?


anyone?

thats to stand still. ie stay on the plateau.

canada is at about 6% with a published fall off to about 4% following some creaming curve deal around 2025

its not impossible that some heroic open cast madness could pull it off especially if the Orinoco gets trashed emergency style but it wouldn't be cheap or pretty I guess

[kublikhan]

Once apon a time he brought his ideas and concepts to both here and TOD. Got banned from TOD first I think, got banned here in the summer of 08.

It isn't science when well armed opponents are excluded.

Was Freddy banned or did he leave TOD? His post here seems to suggest he left the site because he perceived it as having a cult mentality:

Feb 2007 ~ Peak Oil Theory has been replaced as focus at theOilDrum by 100's of ad nauseum daily posts on DieOFF, the coming USA Depression, pending collapse of the world's currencies & hate posts against their President, Congress, the Federal Reserve, all agencies' statistics, the IMF, the UN & anybody that doesn't agree that Oil peaked in 2005. I predicted in January that the conversation was about to deteriorate to discussing human poop for fertilizer use by their nihilist posters that moved to the mountains and are awaiting the anti-christ and the Global Warming induced Great Flood. Well, last week "humanure" was the topic of the day by the lunatic fringe that has hijacked that once excellent forum. It's a cult that gleefully awaits the the collapse of the USA with a desire to turn the evil Empire into an agrarian society in Old Order Amish/Mennonites fashion with no electricity, planes or cars. After almost 2 years, i'm oudda there ~ TOD has PEAKED...

Peak Oil Depletion - Charts for Prediction & Projection of Peak Date, Rate & Decline

January 28, 2006 - 1.2% of the forecast growth was cutback due to the extreme trade deficit. A trade deficit that defines "too healthy" an economy as americans continue to buy cheaper foreign goods (and oil & gasoline). Only a downward correction in the dollar will help that situation.

No credible economists are suggesting that this gdp report is a precursor to Recession. Only the many defeatists at TOD are gloating today. Many here must mature and learn that stats go up and down on a weekly, monthly, qtr'ly and even annual basis and it is important to watch the trendline ... not be consumed in absolute numbers. Otherwise confusion reigns.

Unemployment will continue to drop thru 2006. GDP, which until Q4 had a string of 10 qtr's at 3% or above, will resume its path in Q1 as the GOM rebuild of inftastructure, homes and contents continues.

Plan for a Recession at your own peril...

Economy grows at slowest pace in 3 years

Notice him mocking the posters who predicted a coming US recession. Then we got hit with a nasty recession. Freddy is not some Oracle who is always right. He can make bad calls too. The fact that he does so in a juvenile manner while berating those who disagree with him does not help his cause. He should take some of his own advice to mature and learn.

[Xenophobe]

It isn't science when well armed opponents are excluded.

Was Freddy banned or did he leave TOD? His post here seems to suggest he left the site because he perceived it as having a cult mentality:

He still thinks that. Participates at JD's site he does. And he notified everyone that he got banned using his website. It was all hidden at the others, thats the entire point of the secrecy rules and CoC, to make sure only the correct message is presented, and people really don't know that they are being fed censored information, from only the "chosen" posters.

Notice him mocking the posters who predicted a coming US recession. Then we got hit with a nasty recession.

Cool. If he were allowed to post, we could all make fun of him for being wrong, and he could defend himself fair and square. This place, and the others like it, don't allow that. Some might argue, CAN'T allow that.

[Expatriot]

6 pages of troll wars. Lord.
And this, with oil over 100 and rising, and gasoline going past 330?

[Xenophobe]

6 pages of troll wars. Lord.
And this, with oil over 100 and rising, and gasoline going past 330?

You were as worried when real crude prices were that high...during the Civil War? Come on already....lets try and collectively understand that the price NOW isn't that big of a deal unless you compare to some artificially low time period....like the real price of crude from 1930-1970, when the US could act as swing producer.

Now that we are at themercy of the global market and OPEC is the swing producer, they can do whatever they'd like and all we can do is solve peak oil one transport dependency at a time. This one is good for solving peak oil for nearly all of us.

[dsula]

You were as worried when real crude prices were that high...during the Civil War?

Civil War? Words fail me.

[Xenophobe]

You were as worried when real crude prices were that high...during the Civil War?

Civil War? Words fail me.

They should. It absolutely stuns me into silence that people don't review the history of the price of crude before pretending it's at some all time high it's never been at before, its increasing instead of decreasing, the end is nigh, oh noes!

They act like the price is increasing for the first time ever, rather than it being yet another market move they should already know about.

[dolanbaker]

Just how much oil was being used during time of the (US) civil war?
Was it being used in large quantities by the general population to power their personal transport or to heat their houses or generate electricity etc, if not, it ain't relevent!

[Xenophobe]

Just how much oil was being used during time of the (US) civil war?

All the easy stuff, which wasn't all that much I'm betting. Heck, entire new technologies were required to produce the unconventional oils of the day by 1901, those unconventionals being MUCH higher on a volume basis.

Was it being used in large quantities by the general population to power their personal transport or to heat their houses or generate electricity etc, if not, it ain't relevent!

To you it wasn't. Some people pretend that using it for lighting a house during those first 40 years of easy oil somehow caused population to start exploding! Can you imagine how in the world people could make mistakes like that?

[dolanbaker]

Coal was king until sometime in the first quarter of the 20th century, coal in the 1890s is like oil is today, the principal energy source and driver of the economy.

Tangents are for detracting from the main point, and you've gone off on one!

[mididoctors]

Now that we are at themercy of the global market and OPEC is the swing producer, they can do whatever they'd like and all we can do is solve peak oil one transport dependency at a time. This one is good for solving peak oil for nearly all of us.

I actually think there is a degree of truth to this

the nature of how oil is sold will cap supply to a degree that clouds the geological data

but only to a degree.... the geologic underpinnings must be sufficiently tight for cartels (opec russia etc) to be able to do this

now what sufficiently tight is in absolute terms is debatable...I guess..... but the admission that swing production [or lack of it pick your bias} can control supply globally for substantive periods basically is an admission that we have arrived at a turning point in oils history.. the anti peak now argument is premised on a notion that something has changed despite appealing to a historical record that, "they say", supports their view of no change.

thats the joke.. the "peakers" try and bat down this argument thinking its an attempt to undermine their world view while the "deniers" think they are disproving a break in the continuity in oil production growth by explaining there is one!

its almost tragic

[WebHubbleTelescope]

thats the joke.. the "peakers" try and bat down this argument thinking its an attempt to undermine their world view while the "deniers" think they are disproving a break in the continuity in oil production growth by explaining there is one!

its almost tragic

No kidding. That's partly why we we really have to concentrate on the observables, measures of the proportion of the varieties of oil produced for example.

Oil is peaking as we see a transition from high EROEI forms to low.

I bet Mididoctors is a music geek (with a name like that). So look at the allocation of music delivery mechanisms:

This transition occurs as arguably more efficient media take the place of previous ones. People are probably still listening to the same amount of music before, its just that no one is making any money from it anymore. Sales no longer indicates the volume of music obtained by people, it's just a proxy representing profitability.

Things are really upside down and tragic if people can't see that the oil transition is occurring as a transition to lower efficiency.

You can't look at the proxy measures, you have to look at the real measures.

[WebHubbleTelescope]

Isn't this the same old JD/JohnDenver/POdebunked schtick that went on and on and on? I always thought that attitude was weak because you can rationalize anything with it.

Similar to trendology then?

Trendology is a word coined by a USGS hack who was part of a groupthink of geologists that could not be bothered with coming up with good oil depletion models. They were mystified by processes such as reserve growth and labeled these as "enigmas", and they looked at small scale samples thinking that these have any meaning. Read this fairly embarrassing presentation from a few years ago:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/ofr-03-137/OF03-137.pdf

The amount of public information regarding oil depletion analysis is disappointing. The USGS hack talks about creaming curves, yet if you google "creaming curves", you get my blog site as the top two hits!
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22creaming+curves%22
Ain't that quaint as well?

[WebHubbleTelescope]

thats a random walk.... even a dumbo like me knows WHT's stuff is not time series...

Of course it is. Oil production today is X. Oil production tomorrow is Y, and unknown. Web takes his best fit, double mumbo jumbo, throw in as many coefficients to a polynomial as he can find, corrections, delay, procrastinate and fudge factors as he needs to make it work, and creates a PERFECT hindsight is 20/20 fit to all previous X (otherwise known as time series oil production).

A single extrapolation into tomorrow gives him the answer to Y. Repeat as far into the future as you'd like.

Excel does the same thing, without the philosophical interludes.

Obviously you haven't experienced much outside the model-free environment of statistical analysis. These are not arbitrary polynomials that I use; dispersive discovery with maximum entropy analysis constrains the solutions to take a certain form. If you don't know what maximum entropy is, think in terms of those TV crime dramas that show a picture of an unreadable license plate and then you try to infer the number from it. That is essentially an application of maximum entropy spectral analysis. Years ago people just assumed it couldn't be done but there are constraints and models of behavior that allows one to extract the behavior from the noise and the randomness. I can't help that your limited understanding of what can be done with modern probability and statistics clashes with what I am trying to do but you are free to believe what you want.

It just happens to turn out that a certain geophycisist (J.P.Burg) happened to be a pioneer in this analysis and used it to find oil wells. He actually used it to predict a field which he christened "Rock Entropy #1. It's just a shame that it has taken this long for someone like me to come along and apply it to some deeper oil company concerns than just making a buck

And to your point on Excel: Get this -- do you realize that Excel doesn't even have a Convolution operation?
“It is difficult to exaggerate the importance of convolutions in many branches of mathematics.”
— William Feller from An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications.

I have lots more of this counter-argument that I am just pulling from my book, http://TheOilConundrum.com. I can keep going as long as you like, to me its a shared learning experience.