[bubmachine]

Hello everyone.

I am reasonably new to all this peak oil stuff. It is all very interesting.

My main concern, is the actual scientific status of the theory. I am a bit of a Popperite, and I tend to have a strict criteria of what is science and what isn't. (I even think Darwinism is a dubious theory from a scientific point of view, so I am hard to please! "Scientific consensus" is nonsense!)

The theory seems to depend on three main ideas:

1) Oil is an extremely limited resource.
2) The US peaked in 1971.
3) The global peak, due to the lack of discovery of oil fields, must be sooner rather than later.

I think the idea of a peak is almost tautological; a geological product is limited, by definition. I know that some people doubt that oil is a fossil fuel at all, but this does not make much difference. From a logical point of view, there cannot be a limitless supply of it.

If it is correct that Hubbard predicted that the US would peak, then this, of course, suggests the collaboration of the theory. It does not strictly prove the theory from a logical point of view.

It seems to me that the idea that the oil will peak is obvious. But it seems that it is beyond the limits of science to predict when it will happen. No-one seems to know how much oil is in the ground. By using the data of discovery, seems very weak as an accurate method of prediction. It is too easy to explain falsified predictions on other factors. (The oil crisis caused the 2000 prediction to be delayed, the OPEC countries are exaggerating the amount of reserves .... all these are "ad-hoc" hypotheses to "save" the theory).

My main problem is that false predictions, by the peak oil theorists, are always explained away by these methods, and I am afraid, this is a sign of a pseudoscience.

Perhaps we could say that no-one can give hard evidence for when the oil will peak. It seems difficult to base any kind of political policy on such a vague prediction.

It could be argued that the peak oil theory, although weak from a strictly scientific point of view, is in awareness, but the powers that be are "managing" the oil supply. (Greg Palast has argued that the Iraqi policy, for decades, is to keep it off the market. Maybe a "soft-landing" is being planned. The Saudi oil will take the main pressure in the short-term, and Iraq and Venezuela can take over the main production when Saudi becomes a problem.)

[bubmachine]

World peak has nothing to do with scarcity - oil is not scarce. It has nothing to do with the US Peak (why would it?). And - the timing of global peak is not made "sooner" because of lack of discovery.

If you say so. Haha! Perhaps you need to find out what science is then.

[Aaron]

It does not strictly prove the theory from a logical point of view.

That's 100% correct.

Peak Oil is a current theory & is not provably true or false at this time.

The same as Hubbert's predictions at the time.

As has been almost endlessly observed, geologic events are typically only seen in retrospect.

Just like Hubbert's predictions.

There is however compelling anecdotal evidence that points to a near-term peak in conventional hydrocarbon production, which merits immediate attention & debate.

Thus a valid theory has been formed.

In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

[NEOPO]

Bub - I will help

Uhm Gideon - I dont understand what you are saying.
1.Oil might not be scarce per se yet cheap and easy oil is.

2.Every nations depletion is part of peak oil - how could it not be?

3.Discovery could effect "peak" yet most charts allow for some discovery so to effect peak we would either have to experience far less or way more discovery then we anticipated and this could only be seen in the proverbial "rearview mirror".

As it stands and according to the generally accepted definition of the word "PEAK OIL" december 2005 was the peak in production that is said to correlate with the midway point of conventional oil depletion.

Now wait for Gideon to provide details and be prepared to counter attack!

He will use issues like extrapolations of demand and depletion curves, human populations, economies, the laws of thermodynamics as well as the concept of EROEI and perhaps even Energy density!

At that point you will either go into a deep denial and rationalization phase or reveal yourself as the star wars cornucopian that you are
Whatever you choose - may the force be with you.... always.


As far as Aaron goes - there is no defense against that!!

[bubmachine]

As it stands and according to the generally accepted definition of the word "PEAK OIL" december 2005 was the peak in production that is said to correlate with the midway point of conventional oil depletion.

Really? We have peaked already? Can you point to some evidence.

At that point you will either go into a deep denial and rationalization phase or reveal yourself as the star wars cornucopian that you are

Haha! This is what Popper had to say about pseudoscientific theories.

"I found that those of my friends who were admirers of Marx, Freud, and Adler, were impressed by a number of points common to these theories, and especially by their apparent explanatory power. These theories appear to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred. The study of any of them seemed to have the effect of an intellectual conversion or revelation, open your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated. Once your eyes were thus opened you saw confirmed instances everywhere: the world was full of verifications of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it. Thus its truth appeared manifest; and unbelievers were clearly people who did not want to see the manifest truth; who refuse to see it, either because it was against their class interest, or because of their repressions which were still "un-analyzed" and crying aloud for treatment."

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/pop ... ation.html

I don't think peak oil is a pure pseudoscience (I agree that peak oil will occur sometime), but I think it has some elements of it, especially Heinberg's way of treating people who disagree.

I would say that it is hard to predict.

[bubmachine]

You know, I often wonder if Exxon mobile or the Govt. or other institutions having a vested interest in keeping the lid on send guys in to PO and other sites to say things like "this is pseudoscience."

Don't go all conspiranoid on me.

I am a free man. I don't actually say it is all a pseudoscientific lie, I am just saying that, due to the difficulties of prediction, no-one can say when it is going to happen.

[jbrovont]

Uh oh - a decoy.

Is there really global warming? Is the climate really changing?
Is the pope Catholic?

There are lots of great resources available both on and on this site about what peak theory is.

However, debating whether pi really is the ratio of the diameter of a circle to it's circumference...is...uh... enough said.

Neither are we debating what the definition of the word 'is' is either.

And BTW, Gideon, CNN actually ran an article about this a week or so ago. I can dig it out of my RSS archive if you're interested.

[bubmachine]

Uh oh - a decoy.

Stop worrying. As I have said, I believe oil will peak. Just not sure when, and I do think we can do things about it, and I do think the powers that be are actually doing something about it, but not in a way that is being discussed.

If the US (and the UK) refuse to accept oil from Venezuela, and that Iraqi oil has been continually disturbed, then it suggests that there is some element of management. If they were really just concenred about getting cheap oil, why have a war in Iraq, and refuse cheap oil from Chavez?

Perhaps they are thinking "don't let the whole world pump oil at will, otherwise we will have a huge crash. So lets manage it".

Is there really global warming? Is the climate really changing? Is the pope Catholic?

That is not the way science works. Science is not politics, or decided by votes.

It is decided by theory and evidence.

[Ludi]

The peak oil theory is extremely robust. Please do some more reading, bub.

[bubmachine]

The peak oil theory is extremely robust. Please do some more reading, bub.

Call me weird and all that, but I haven't said anywhere that I don't believe it.

I am just saying about the problem of predicting the future.

As for when Saudi peaks, who actually knows? Do even the Saudis know when their own fields will peak? Does Matthew Simmons actually believe he knows more than the Saudi Government?

[Dreamtwister]

As it stands and according to the generally accepted definition of the word "PEAK OIL" december 2005 was the peak in production that is said to correlate with the midway point of conventional oil depletion.

Really? We have peaked already? Can you point to some evidence.

That has yet to be determined.

When people around here say "December 2005" or "May 2005" or July 2006", what they are refering to is the record to date. It may or may not turn out to be the peak, but there is insufficient data to conclusively determine that. We won't "see" the peak until it's 2-5 years behind us.

But here is some evidence I was able to dig up from around this board:

(Courtesy of gego and Princeton University)


Notice the plateau on the right side?

(Courtesy of Leanan and the EIA)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/ipm/supply.html

(Courtesy of Newsseeker, Reuters and Matt Simmons)
Link

"If you basically have another six to ten months of that decline lasting, then I think for certain we would look back and say, 'Guess what? We actually reached a sustainable peak in crude oil production in December 2005,'" Simmons said at a meeting of the United States of the the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas.

My choice of this paragraph as teaser was not to put forth a specific date, but rather to highlight the methodology by which we would arrive at determining such a date.

(Courtesy of skyemoor and Oil Market Report archives)
Link

Have we peaked yet? Hard to say. Posters here have mentioned projects that are supposed to come onstream "soon", particularly rockdoc123. They may push back the peak, they may not. Time will tell.

But December 2005 - 84.3Mb/d appears to be the high watermark we must pass in order to say "not quite yet".

[waegari]

My main problem is that false predictions, by the peak oil theorists, are always explained away by these methods, and I am afraid, this is a sign of a pseudoscience.

Perhaps we could say that no-one can give hard evidence for when the oil will peak. It seems difficult to base any kind of political policy on such a vague prediction.

It seems your main problem is not so much the chance of false predictions getting explained away, but the difficulty in basing policy on a theory in which that would happen.

But let's suppose false predictions would be a problem.
As far as I'm aware the majority of PO theorists does not even believe we have already passed the peak. Up till now only Deffeyes and Bhaktari
have voiced the opinion that we're already there, and as far as i know they have not retracted on that yet.
So up till now your own theory (or putting it more friendly, your hypothesis) that PO theory invariably explains away false predictions has not been corroborated yet.

Another thing is the matter of policy. What if no policy would enue at all? PO is not a theory about something in the universe which does not affect human affairs. It is a theory about something which would have the greatest possible impact on all of human life. It would seem highly irresponsible not to take action on such a theory, which, as you yourself agree upon, stands up to reason in at least its main contention, even if oil were of abiotic nature.

The diferent time ranges PO theorists are talking about vary at best 20 to 30 years amongst each other. Many of us are positive that it would be an irresponsible bet to believe that we should only start getting concerned at the moment of the most optimistic PO estimate.
This is especially true, because you can never tell when exactly the peak did happen. You can only decide to have passed it, as soon as the stats show you that you have. But at that point it's already too late.

The decision when to start acting upon your concern is exactly the point where the ethical argument takes over from scientific reasoning per se: how many people's lives are you willing to risk worldwide?

That's what PO theory in the final analysis is about.

[bubmachine]

Dreamtwister, cheers for the info.

But let's suppose false predictions would be a problem.
As far as I'm aware the majority of PO theorists does not even believe we have already passed the peak. Up till now only Deffeyes and Bhaktari
have voiced the opinion that we're already there, and as far as i know they have not retracted on that yet.
So up till now your own theory (or putting it more friendly, your hypothesis) that PO theory invariably explains away false predictions has not been corroborated yet.

The main thing I am referring to is Hubbard's original (failed) prediction of a 2000 peak. From a scientific point of view, the theory is "falsified" because the theory cannot expect to predict political occurances. (The 1973 oil crisis).

Heinberg often refers to the view that the OPEC countries wildly exaggerate their own reserves. Because I presume that Heinberg predicted that the peak will occur between 2006 and 2015, so the OPEC are simply lying.

By point is that any prediction of a peak in the future cannot take into consideration of global political matters. There maybe a strong difference in between predicting a national and a global peak.

The diferent time ranges PO theorists are talking about vary at best 20 to 30 years amongst each other. Many of us are positive that it would be an irresponsible bet to believe that we should only start getting concerned at the moment of the most optimistic PO estimate.

Yes, the varying times of the prediction, for me, points to the view that it is simply beyond science to predict it.

I think there are many reasons to be efficient in oil use, and to diversify our energy sources. Peak oil is one of them!

I think I mainly oppose Heinberg's doomsday predictions. Talking about "die-offs" and moving to an agricultural lifestyle is perfectly useless, because it is based on an unscientific prophecy.

I think the following types of things would be useful:

1) Diversify. And that includes coal and nuclear. Coal is dirty and nuclear is dangerous, but I am sure we can work it out.
2) Stop the main religion of today, the worship of cars. There is no reason to have a gas guzzler. I have always driven a small car, they are fine. The demand could be dramatically reduced if the US decided that big cars are evil.
3) Decent public transport. A lot of European countries have excellent systems. So should all countries.
4) Stop blaming the poor using EasyJet. Start thinking about helping people in poverty.
5) Stop people like Heinberg scaring people with ideas about population control. The only problem I can see is that the white faces use about a 1000 times more energy than the non-white faces. Any talk of population control is complete nonsense. Arrrr!!!

[Micki]

The theory seems to depend on three main ideas:

1) Oil is an extremely limited resource.
2) The US peaked in 1971.
3) The global peak, due to the lack of discovery of oil fields, must be sooner rather than later.

1) As long as it is limited and we continue extracting, it will at some stage run out. During the extraction time there will be one or more occasions when when the extraction reached maximum output. (i.e. it could be a double or triple peak.)
Looking at other wells, fields, nations that have peaked it is however most likely that there is one peak.
This has got to do with combination of size of wells discovered (early finds or big wells) ramping up or rigs, quality of oil in the upper half VS lower half of well etc.

2) That US peaked in 71 does not have any significant input/impact into PO theory except that
A) Hubbert predicted the peak with pretty good accuracy and his theory for world peak therefore should be taken seriously and
B) It gives an example of a nation that has peaked and gives evidence that this happens. If oil is abiotic and wells refill themselves, they do so with such a low speed that it will not have any impact in a foreseeable future.

3) Does not have to be sooner rather than later. PO would exist as theory even if we thought oil was going to run out in 1000 years. The theories however suggest that peak is passed or imminent and it is causing reson to react.

Even Exxon and other oposers of PO actually agree that oil is limited. They are just not using the term PO and claim that we can ignore the theory for a while as ememrgence of non-conventional oil will make transition away from conventional light sweet seamless.

[seldom_seen]

I think I mainly oppose Heinberg's doomsday predictions. Talking about "die-offs" and moving to an agricultural lifestyle is perfectly useless, because it is based on an unscientific prophecy.

Wrong. It's based on principles of ecology and biology that can easily be replicated in a lab or observed in nature.

You can oppose this reality all you want, but it doesn't make it any less real.

[Ludi]

If you're going to bitch about the "scientific status of the peak oil theory" bub, at least be clear on what you're bitching about.

[bubmachine]

2) That US peaked in 71 does not have any significant input/impact into PO theory except that
A) Hubbert predicted the peak with pretty good accuracy and his theory for world peak therefore should be taken seriously and
B) It gives an example of a nation that has peaked and gives evidence that this happens. If oil is abiotic and wells refill themselves, they do so with such a low speed that it will not have any impact in a foreseeable future.

The prediction of the US peak means everything in terms of peak oil being a scientific theory. A scientific theory that does not make (or cannot make) predictions is very silly.

[bubmachine]

I think I mainly oppose Heinberg's doomsday predictions. Talking about "die-offs" and moving to an agricultural lifestyle is perfectly useless, because it is based on an unscientific prophecy.

Wrong. It's based on principles of ecology and biology that can easily be replicated in a lab or observed in nature.

You can oppose this reality all you want, but it doesn't make it any less real.

Making doomsday predictions is not science. Sorry.

And Heinberg dislikes coal because it is dirty and nuclear because it is dangerous. This is silly, and it shows a basic ignorance of psychology or sociology.

Most people do not care if coal is dirty or if nuclear is dangerous. The most rational thing to do is to make coal less dirty and nuclear less dangerous.

If Heinberg wants to live in a tent by a field with only a dog on a string and an acoustic guitar, that is up to him. but I don't think the rest of us would be happy with that.

[bubmachine]

If you're going to bitch about the "scientific status of the peak oil theory" bub, at least be clear on what you're bitching about.

Confused? Haha, others don't seem to have a problem with the view that the theory cannot predict the peak date.

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

The main thing I am referring to is Hubbard's original (failed) prediction of a 2000 peak. From a scientific point of view, the theory is "falsified" because the theory cannot expect to predict political occurances. (The 1973 oil crisis).

Or economic consequences, the likes of which drove the worldwide drop in demand late-70's.

Yes, the varying times of the prediction, for me, points to the view that it is simply beyond science to predict it.

Because economics doesn't qualify as a particularly rigorous "science" ( or any science at all ), and the consequences of Peak will be dictated in the world of "economics", so science isn't really involved in the answer much.

I think there are many reasons to be efficient in oil use, and to diversify our energy sources. Peak oil is one of them!

No it isn't. Economics is. Critical difference. Think of it this way. Peak oil can come and go and no one will notice, as long as demand always stays less than supply. Doesn't matter really by how much, but as long as supply is more, the regular world won't ever notice. And this supply>demand scenario functions quite well pre-Peak, at Peak, post-peak, it really doesn't matter.

Now, the standard Doomers stunt is to instantly configure demand<supply and conjure up the end of the world ( pick your silly scenario ) with no regards for the consequences ( economic ) and changes such a scenario generates all by itself. Such as demand destruction, people buying first HEV's, then PHEV's, and finally EV's, as just a single mitigating item, with current technology, which addresses some of the huge waste in the system. Again, an economic effect to a specific cause which itself drives down consumption. Go look at the supply graph from the early 80's again. Cause and effect.

I think I mainly oppose Heinberg's doomsday predictions. Talking about "die-offs" and moving to an agricultural lifestyle is perfectly useless, because it is based on an unscientific prophecy.

But Kuntsler and Ruppert and Heinberg all make money selling the concept to people who need to see Doom around the corner for some psychological reason or another. None of them have anything to do with science and in specific items are factually incorrect a decent percentage of the time. You would think they would at least pay attention to the details prior to leaping off into dieoff mode.

Heinberg has nothing to do with "science", at least not if you use his name in the same breath as Hubberts.

I think the following types of things would be useful:

2) Stop the main religion of today, the worship of cars.

This one alone puts such a dent in the issue that the KIDS of Doomers will have to be of college age before we go through all this claptrap again ( for those of us who were alive during the LAST time we were running out of oil...and natural gas...and our politicians were dumb enough to confuse geologic scarcity with the economics of oil and gas production.