On that point, peakers have been, let's say, a little over-eager in their predictions, by a factor of a decade and counting.
This is not a gotcha, just me being lazy. How are the "peakers" predictions less shale and oil sands production ? Anyone ?
So you are saying that peaker ideas only work out if you count some of the oil? Makes perfect sense, if all the oil doesn't give you the answer you want, only count the stuff that does!
This question would make sense if, as a consumer, you or I rolled up to a gas station and purchased the gasoline from oil type A, B or C and the price reflected the difference. But because oil is oil, and it gets manufactured into the same products, this doesn't happen. Which is why the question is irrelevant...because none of us here use oil...we use gasoline and diesel and jet fuel.
wildbourgman wrote:If the math that was done by folks like M Hubbert King and Campbell were based off of conventional reservoirs, to me you can't complain about the math just the lack of vision in predicting at what lengths we would go to in order to get the black stuff.
Feel free to get the "math" for a bell shaped curve to have 2 maxima. In Colin's case, more like 4, since he was calling peak oil in 1990, and at various points in between when became obvious that his math sucked.
wildbourgman wrote: One could predict that a crack addict locked in a house will eventually run out of cocaine, but you didn't think that he would learn how to make crystal meth with everyday household supplies that he had in an adjoining garage. If that analogy is where we are that's not really good.
Good thing crack addicts aren't in charge of finding oil, maybe then a bell shaped curve would have worked. But we've fierce field men like Rockman out there, putting the smackdown on bell shaped curves every day of their working lives. Go Rockman! LOL.