[M_B_S]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/arthurberma ... -peak-oil/

Conventional oil production peaked in January 2011 at 86.2 mmbpd unconventional oil 2015?

=>
oil-barrel-pyramid-model-by-m-b-s-peak-2011-t33970.html#p550313
PEAK OIL!
q.e.d.

M_B_S

[dolanbaker]

It will be interesting to see how this affects future investments in oil production, after all Forbes readers are generally people who would make these decisions.

[vtsnowedin]

It will be interesting to see how this affects future investments in oil production, after all Forbes readers are generally people who would make these decisions.

Watch the smart money with a long term view buy up proven recoverable land based reserves while the present owners are financially stressed.

[Pops]

peak-t71841-60.html#p1288271

[dolanbaker]

I thought I'd seen that story somewhere already.

[Pops]

Yeah but it wasn't in ALL CAPS!
lol

[GHung]

I just did a search of the Oil Drum archives, going back 5-6 years, and it's remarkable how many commenters expected a long undulating plateau in oil production. " ...that Peak Oil seems to be shaping up into Peak Plateau" (2013); "Production may have already peaked, but I think it will plateau and remain fairly constant for a while" (2011); "All I can see is plateaus and peaks...." (2011).....

Seems some over at TOD weren't so wrong after all.

[Pops]

(mods: if the search function worked better or I knew how to use it better, then oh well . . . . is there search function help?)

New search button in the sidebar just for you Pete!

[ennui2]

I just did a search of the Oil Drum archives, going back 5-6 years, and it's remarkable how many commenters expected a long undulating plateau in oil production. " ...that Peak Oil seems to be shaping up into Peak Plateau" (2013); "Production may have already peaked, but I think it will plateau and remain fairly constant for a while" (2011); "All I can see is plateaus and peaks...." (2011).....

Seems some over at TOD weren't so wrong after all.

You are misreading it. By 2011, according to TOD's logic, peak was already 6 years in the past. So it's not that TOD were correct, as much as the discussion there had already shifted to trying to make sense of the sky not having fallen before they just stopped visiting altogether, after which TOD shut down.

[Outcast_Searcher]

It will be interesting to see how this affects future investments in oil production, after all Forbes readers are generally people who would make these decisions.

Meh. While I'll agree Forbes readers are generally business people and at least aspiring to be capitalists (or the captains of industry), given the generally moderate (and below) quality of MANY of the articles of magazines like Forbes (and many of its peers) -- I strongly doubt the people actually making major investments in anything would waste their time reading it regularly. (Perhaps having a minion scan such periodicals for something actually significant for them, instead. And if you think that such scanning for executives doesn't happen, I had a part time job during college in '78 - '79 scanning EVERY newspaper (in all 120 counties) of KY, looking for ANY articles on energy, clipping, and saving them for my employer -- the head of P.R. at KY Utilities. If ANY issue on energy in the state came up, he had immediate access to all the relevant stories in the press, in a well organized and detailed and long term filing system on energy).)

I would point to "The Economist" as an example of a high quality economics periodical accessible by the layman, to back me up on this. IMO, there is no comparison. The Economist is much more expensive -- and in a class by itself compared to periodicals like Forbes. (I'll include The WSJ in the Forbes quality class, BTW. It's more about marketing, politics, and saving money on editors and proof readers than producing high quality financial journalism, which is why I quit reading it).

[ennui2]

Doomerism as any sort of movement lost steam in the fall of 2008. The closest thing we have to mainstream doomerism is the climate change movement which is comprised mostly of bright-green libs ala Graeme. Maybe George Monbiot is the most mainstream doomer these days as far as how big his bully pulpit is and how much of a killjoy his message is, but again, it's environment and not energy. OK, maybe the Pope, with his anti-capitalistic message, but he's not talking about peak oil either.

You're bound to have people professing doom, even serious sounding ones. But there aren't many. This guy is no Matt Simmons. Let's see this guy write a book and get in front of the camera on CNN and CNBC. If he really thinks we've got a serious problem he'll do more than write an isolated editorial.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

When are the two of you just going to get it over with and hate fuck each other?

[Outcast_Searcher]

Doomerism as any sort of movement lost steam in the fall of 2008. The closest thing we have to mainstream doomerism is the climate change movement which is comprised mostly of bright-green libs ala Graeme. Maybe George Monbiot is the most mainstream doomer these days as far as how big his bully pulpit is and how much of a killjoy his message is, but again, it's environment and not energy. OK, maybe the Pope, with his anti-capitalistic message, but he's not talking about peak oil either.

You're bound to have people professing doom, even serious sounding ones. But there aren't many. This guy is no Matt Simmons. Let's see this guy write a book and get in front of the camera on CNN and CNBC. If he really thinks we've got a serious problem he'll do more than write an isolated editorial.

I think if you believe that concern about climate change (i.e. AGW) isn't becoming seriously mainstream, you're deluding yourself. NOT to say we're all as alarmist, as say Lore (and I respect that Lore -- you put effort into understanding your position, so props for that) -- but there is so much evidence against you here (even with many conservative sources now ceding the point that AGW is "real"), that you don't need to turn to even remotely "green" sources to see many meaningful mainstream articles every single week.

(Is there ANY amount of evidence that would get you to take AGW seriously?)

[ennui2]

I think if you believe that concern about climate change (i.e. AGW) isn't becoming seriously mainstream, you're deluding yourself.

AGW is trending higher than peak-oil, but surprisingly not as much as you'd think, despite the Pope, more extreme weather events, etc...

Here is google trends for global warming.

https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q ... %2FGMT%2B5

And for peak oil.

https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=peak%20oil

All of this stuff has been on a gradually declining trend for years now.

AGW is having a pretty decent uptick, maybe due to the Pope and COP21 and the super-hot Christmas and melting of the North Pole, but it will probably slide back down again.

[Pops]

All of this stuff has been on a gradually declining trend for years now.

So go elsewhere.
But stop with the incessant trolling for doomers.
People are here to have the discussion or they would go somewhere other than a site called peakoil.com

Consider this a warning.

[GHung]

ennui said; "You are misreading it. By 2011, according to TOD's logic, peak was already 6 years in the past. So it's not that TOD were correct,..."

What would be incorrect is your assertion that there was a consensus at TOD. Opinions there ran the gamut regarding peak/no peak, and the implications. Your saying otherwise is as silly as those of you who claim "America this" or "America that".

[shortonoil]

Peak Oil is a statistical function. Without doing more work on this than is necessary, we can say with a 97.5% probability that Peak will have occurred if for two consecutive years production has fallen by at least 1.65 mb/d from the previous year. That is based on 49 years of data taken from the EIA; which is about the best that there is. Production fell by more than 1.65 mb/d per year four times over that period, and it fell by a lesser margin from its previous year 14 times over that same period.

To be 99.5% sure that peak had occurred in any year production would have to fall by 5.001 mb/d for that year. Using volumetric data, Peak will not likely be known with any reasonable level of confidence, for at least two years after it has occurred. Use of an energy metric is not so constrained by such limitations.