[onlooker]

I am saying your argument rests on the past and you have little to contribute now except to remind us that a few got over exuberant with their predictions in 2005

[Cog]

I am saying your argument rests on the past and you have little to contribute now except to remind us that a few got over exuberant with their predictions in 2005

So a group of people who claim gloom and doom repeatedly for decades and have been wrong every time, and I'm supposed to believe them now just because they have a brand new shiny doom model? Dude, listen to yourself.

[onlooker]

Goodness seems akin now to saying that because you have not died yet, you will not ever Hey I still love you all regardless of your circular reasoning

[Cog]

I was and it was bad mortgages that led to the recession. The price of oil never entered the equation. At least not as a main cause of the recession.

I took the cure for doomerism and invested balls deep in the market in 2009. That is why I'm retired now.

[ROCKMAN]

70 - "hesitated to post because I suspect by doing so I'll just be dragged into the game of hurling petty-insults that masquerades as a debate" You may have noticed the Rockman doesn't hurl insults at anyone here. Except his buddies. LOL. The Rockman usually just hurls facts at folks and let them interpret as they like. In your case, if I read you correctly, the facts don't lead to you feel that much of the words current problems are energy related. Just your opinion but certainly deserves no insulting attack.

No matter how f*cking stupid your opinion might be. LOL. Just teasing, of course, since I now count you as one of my new buddies. You really should post more often and just ignore the rude folks.

[spike]

First, Colin Campbell published his initial peak oil article in 1989, said that year was the peak. He moved it out repeatedly after that, so the record of 'misses' is more extensive, both global and national levels. Second, my book explains in great detail that the arguments and math underlying the Campbell/Laherrere work were simply wrong. Never been refuted, to my knowledge.
Third, my track record is far better than anyone else's that I know, it just happens my critics like Romm, Nelder, and Pstarr are all but completely unfamiliar with my work and focus only on short-term price forecasts in the 2000s.
The supply of oil is very complex, most of the people who talk about it aren't. (A couple on this site are good, IMHO, but also less doctrinaire.)

[AdamB]

From today's Financial Times: Oil and gas discoveries dry up to lowest total for 60 years

"Discoveries of new oil and gas fields have dropped to a fresh 60-year low, as companies put a brake on exploration and large fields have become harder to find."

There were only 174 oil and gas discoveries worldwide last year, compared with an average of 400-500 a year up until 2013, according to IHS Markit, the research group.

The slowdown in exploration success shows that the world is likely to become increasingly reliant on “unconventional” resources such as US shale oil and gas to meet demand for energy in future decades. 

The typical time from discovery to production is five to seven years, so a shortfall in oil and gas discoveries now implies tighter supplies in the next decade. 

I much prefer Campbell/Laherrere backdated version

You really need to watch Spike's entire video series. It is excellent. And then perhaps you won't be so quick to jump straight into one of the categories he first outlines, and then demolishes.

[AdamB]

I am saying your argument rests on the past and you have little to contribute now except to remind us that a few got over exuberant with their predictions in 2005

Revisionist history. Peakers did the same as far back as Jimmy Carter in the late 1970's, Colin in the late 1980's, COlin throughout the 90's, and 2000, 2006, and 2008 were just a few of the others in the early 2000's.

And I referenced folks doing outward projections this very day, so you don't get to pretend that I only understand how reality has debunked those without any understanding of resource economics, and I believe i have previously even pointed out the open source nature of the models used to make some of those government projections. I recommend learning more about the sciences involved, rather then pretending that 2005 and astrologers and beat cops were the only problem with the recent peak oil past.

[AdamB]

I am saying your argument rests on the past and you have little to contribute now except to remind us that a few got over exuberant with their predictions in 2005

The predictions were 100% spot on.

Fighting faux news and a pstarr trumpian reality, one fact at a time.



For the record, it isn't "100% spot on" when it goes down, and reality, goes up.

Peak conventional oil drove prices up, but demand down (stagflation, also see ETP). Thus $100/barrel oil.

Oil isn't $100/bbl, it is less than that, and it was supposed to be more, because of peak oil.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simmons%E ... ierney_bet

For the record, it isn't "100% spot on" when it goes in the opposite direction claimed.

[AdamB]

Well intern-boy, this is the real peak. Those other pikers and their lousy predictions have nothing on this peak.

Which peak are you referring to, now that we know that the last couple claimed weren't really the peak?

After 60 years of declining discoveries the end had to come some time. This is that time. Now new oil, no old oil. This is the end my friend. Look up top and see the light. It's in the charts. It's fun to learn.

You should watch Spike's entire video series. It is fun to learn. Now I've got to go buy the book, if only for the references to use the next time folks wheel out the peak oil meme to have another go at demonstrating that they really need a better understanding of economics prior to...you know....doing the obvious.

AdamB child, what do you think of "Discoveries of new oil and gas fields have dropped to a fresh 60-year low, as companies put a brake on exploration and large fields have become harder to find."

Hard to wrap your mind around that. Huh?

It didn't stop the US from doubling its oil production over the last half decade, so apparently your graph isn't meaningful in the US, so why in the world do you think it would be meaningful anywhere else? Do you have some geologic secret you wish to let us in on?

[onlooker]

haha, you must get a kick talking about the past Adam cause you always do. We are in uncharted waters now!

[onlooker]

P, I caught Kub directly contradicting what Short states , go to the Etp thread

[AdamB]

So true onlooker. AdamB attacks folks long gone, from ancient debates.

They aren't ancient debates. They are the peak oil mindset, and predictive ability, contemporaneous to when people like you actually believed peak oil was happening, and would change the world in ways other than it did. If I recall from your past postings, you claimed that peak oil would itself stop the buildout of renewable forms of power. The exact opposite occurred. Peak oil happened, according to you, and there are now windmills stretching as far as the eye can see in Kansas and Texas, with gasoline at real prices more resembling those of the early 70's.

The ideas of then, are obsolete. Recycling a discredited idea, without changing it to accommodate what was learned along the way, is nothing more than a demonstration of an inability to learn. I recommend learning from not just your past mistakes, but of all those who so screwed the pooch so thoroughly in the past, and figuring out why they got it so wrong, that you might stop walking the same path. In your case...again.