[ennui2]

Google trend "ebola"----look, its not trending now. Does that mean there is no Ebola?

That's one way to look at it. You could also compare it to imaginary fears like 2012 doom. (Mayan Calendar)



I'm not saying peak oil is an imaginary fear but I also think that when things start to get bad enough, it WILL trend. It trended from 2005-2008 and it will trend again. It's not trending now, though, because there is no real "doom" associated with peak-oil, and those who stridently keep trying to link it to debt are failing to connect with joe sixpack on the degrees of separation.

[ennui2]

Sorry. Hubbert didn't consider unconventional sources in his prediction as I remember.

And consequently, neither did peakers. Nobody thought it would be economical enough to ramp up, and yet it was (and is). Just maybe not at current prices.

[Plantagenet]

Google trend "ebola"----look, its not trending now. Does that mean there is no Ebola?

That's one way to look at it.

Not its not. Ebola is real----its just not trending on Google trends at the moment.

Peak oil is the same way. We're in an oil glut right now, so peak oil isn't trending on Goodle trends right now.

But the scientific theory of peak oil is still around, and at some point there will be another real world test to see if the peak oil theory can be predict the future pattern of global oil production.

Cheers!

[ennui2]

Did the run-up in oil prices to $147/barrel that helped to facilitate the drop in OECD consumption, also make it economically viable to go after the shale oil? If that’s the case, then you can’t count the 4 mbpd shale oil and tar sands contribution to oil production. Thus, oil production hasn’t increased. We’d have a 2 mbpd shortfall.

If we had any sort of "shortfall" then prices would reflect it. We don't. We have a glut. However we got here, we're in a glut. You keep fixating on "if this bad thing didn't happen, we'd never be here" as an attempt to be a killjoy over cheap gas. I'm sorry, but gas is cheap because of oversupply, period. And all you need to do is hit up copious.abundance's thread to see more than enough evidence that BAU is neither broken nor unbowed. We were sold empty store shelves and zombie hordes and instead we've got just your everyday grumbling about the rich getting richer and the poor poorer. That is not the apocalypse we were promised.

[ennui2]

Peak oil is the same way. We're in an oil glut right now, so peak oil isn't trending on Goodle trends right now.

Peak oil discussion was ramping up when oil was as cheap as $60 a barrel circa 2004/2005, around the time I first came to this site. It didn't have to be $147/bbl to start to command mind-share. I think the collateral damage of the overplaying of peak-oil doom is it is that much harder to win back anybody's mind-share, since the worst-case scenario didn't pan out.

Would I like to see Hirsch-report style mitigations now, during the lull? Sure. It would be a win-win. Instead we have an AGW-motivated $10/bbl gas tax proposal which is DOA due to republicans.

[MonteQuest]

Did the run-up in oil prices to $147/barrel that helped to facilitate the drop in OECD consumption, also make it economically viable to go after the shale oil? If that’s the case, then you can’t count the 4 mbpd shale oil and tar sands contribution to oil production. Thus, oil production hasn’t increased. We’d have a 2 mbpd shortfall.

If we had any sort of "shortfall" then prices would reflect it.

WTF? Re-read what I wrote. I didn't claim any shortfall. Did you miss the point I was making?

[MonteQuest]

You keep fixating on "if this bad thing didn't happen, we'd never be here" as an attempt to be a killjoy over cheap gas.

No, I am saying had not the 2008 crash happened, I don't think we would have a glut. Production would not have met demand. Where would this 8 to 9 mbpd have come from? The rest of the world continued to consume, why would OECD have not? That's pretty straight forward and no one has been able to, or has even tried to rebut that fact.

[ennui2]

Did the run-up in oil prices to $147/barrel that helped to facilitate the drop in OECD consumption, also make it economically viable to go after the shale oil? If that’s the case, then you can’t count the 4 mbpd shale oil and tar sands contribution to oil production. Thus, oil production hasn’t increased. We’d have a 2 mbpd shortfall.

If we had any sort of "shortfall" then prices would reflect it.

WTF? Re-read what I wrote. I didn't claim any shortfall. Did you miss the point I was making?

OK, no shortfall. All's well, then. See what I mean? You are emphasizing a theoretical shortfall so you are left constructing a phantom half the time and denying it's there the other.

That's pretty straight forward and no one has been able to, or has even tried to rebut that fact.

The problem which you fail to see is that this analysis has hardly the gravitas you're ascribing to it. Last time I used a colorful metaphor to emphasize how meaningless this is, but you continue to emphasize it like you've just stumbled on the dead-sea scrolls. It means nothing.

We're in a GLUT.

[MonteQuest]

OK, no shortfall. All's well, then. See what I mean? You are emphasizing a theoretical shortfall so you are left constructing a phantom half the time and denying it's there the other.

You still don't get the point, do you? Did the run-up in oil prices to $147/barrel make it economically viable to go after the shale oil?

Yes or no?

[MonteQuest]

The problem which you fail to see is that this analysis has hardly the gravitas you're ascribing to it.

Well, I can see no one has tried to refute it. I presented the EIA numbers. Let's see you refute them. Explain how non-OECD grew 40% while OECD declined 35%.

[ennui2]

Well, I can see no one has tried to refute it. I presented the EIA numbers. Let's see you refute them. Explain how non-OECD grew 40% while OECD declined 35%.

The important point is you haven't proven that the numbers have any relevance.

I'll use a less offensive but equally on-the-nose metaphor, Monte. You are NAVEL GAZING.

Get with the program.

We're in a glut.

[MonteQuest]

The important point is you haven't proven that the numbers have any relevance.

8 to 9 mbpd is of no relevance? I see no rebuttal of the merits, only a hand wave dismissal.

[ennui2]

The important point is you haven't proven that the numbers have any relevance.

8 to 9 mbpd is of no relevance? I see no rebuttal of the merits, only a hand wave dismissal.

There's no need to wave my hands. All I need to do is go down to the gas station and look at the prices to see that your 8 to 9 mbpd napkin calculation has no relevance.

We're in a glut.

[AdamB]

You mean, except for all the growth that did happen?

Just because demand was growing tomorrow, there is no requirement it grow tomorrow. The US and its crude consumption, and increased efficiency, having proven that strawman moot quite effectively, even after 2008 when peak was supposed to have happened already.

It has to keep growing. That's the only way that a global capitalist economy will thrive.

Except for the times it DOESN'T grow of course...and it seems to me that capitalism survived the Great Depression, and all the recessions between there and the Great Recession in 2008, and is still here, after all that non growing.

Absolute statements don't tend to work so well, particularly when reality has already discredited the claim.

Those making the claim for growth and capitalism and peak demand are being published in the WSJ, sounds like they are gaining quite some traction! Getting tougher to shriek "PEAK OIL!!!!" and have anyone wet their pants any more, what with prices at the pump and all.

[AdamB]

Higher production was made possible because of the premise that high prices would be maintained.

Reference yourself posting this anywhere on the web BEFORE it became obvious that drill baby drill would work, and you sir, I will put on the "smart guy who say all this coming" list.

So far, we've got Mr Rock, Mr Growth, and perhaps JD (just discovered his blog and WHO YAW! that guy knew the difference between carnival barking and the facts of the matter) who knew that there was something smelly in the woodpile BEFORE it happened, so just reference you saying this around a decade or so back and you are on the lists!

Otherwise, you are "pulling a Monte" (I never claimed a peak before, and if I did, I changed my mind), calling the Superbowl the day after it was played, as it were.

That's why the industry needs the latter in order to make debt repayments:

Peak oil isn't about debt repayments. You are thinking about bankruptcy courts perhaps?

If you read Hubbert's report, you will see references to shale and other sources. Thus, there were no surprises.

So, you are saying that Hubbert was wrong then?

[AdamB]

URRs are helpful only if it can be assumed that the oil industry will go for maximum depletion rates.

So Hubbert was wrong again, using those forms of measure for his predictions? You'll probably catch some heat around here trying to make that point stick!

But given diminishing returns, that means significant levels of debt for ever-decreasing increases in production. And that can only be sustained by higher oil prices.

You are painting with a VERY large brush. Increasing debt, higher prices, diminishing returns, you are also describing the crash in industry heading into 1986. And here we all still are, so obviously it wasn't a particularly important combination, other than for industry folks. Consumers loved it, just like we do now!

That's why the same report indicates that a significant portion of annual oil demand increase each year has to be replaced by renewable energy during the next two decades.

Well, sounds like reality is tracking right along to replace oil as Amy Jaffe is suggesting. Been through central Kansas lately?

So many, they disappear over the horizon.

[AdamB]

The only technofix that works is one that's cheap. This one is not.

Go down to your local gas station and say that. And then try NOT to laugh.

[AdamB]

I think it came from, among other things, billions of dollars in debt that can only be repaid if prices go up once more:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... to-survive

That reference said nothing about the refining process that converts dollars into oil. I mean, when you convert dirt into oil, you can show a picture like this:



But I can't find one of those for a dollar to oil conversion plant.

[AdamB]

http://eec.ucdavis.edu/highlight/why-th ... peak-soon/

As explained earlier, in order to meet economic growth and a growing global middle class, more oil and many other resources will be needed. That's the opposite of peak demand.

Smooth move, making sure you don't respond to a qualified professional driving a transportation and economic stake right through the heart of your idea. She speaks economics. Professionally. Can you refute even the spelling of any word she wrote?