Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Michael C. Lynch Thread Pt. 2

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: THE Michael C. Lynch Thread (merged)

Unread postby spike » Wed 15 Feb 2017, 14:46:28

I'm sure there are dead people who've sold more books, but how did you figure out I sold 24?
User avatar
spike
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon 15 Nov 2004, 03:00:00

Re: THE Michael C. Lynch Thread (merged)

Unread postby Cog » Wed 15 Feb 2017, 14:47:05

Doomers absolutely hate the past. They love future doom predictions but past doomer predictions go down their memory hole.
User avatar
Cog
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 9840
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Metro-East Illinois

Re: THE Michael C. Lynch Thread (merged)

Unread postby AdamB » Wed 15 Feb 2017, 15:03:10

spike wrote:I'm sure there are dead people who've sold more books, but how did you figure out I sold 24?


Pstarr gets "carried away" quite a bit. This is what he calls it when his random statements are contradicted by facts. Some might just say he lies alot, but he prefers "carried away" when he just makes things up. So he makes up things, so my guess is he first thought "2" books, and then multiplied it by 2 to get 4, and then added them together...except he mistaken just put one after the other because he thought "add" meant put one number after the other, rather than, you know, "adding" them together. Makes perfect sense in a pstarr world.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 3762
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: THE Michael C. Lynch Thread (merged)

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Wed 15 Feb 2017, 16:40:39

If I remember the story correctly Hermann Melville wrote Moby Dick in the late 1800's and hardly sold any copies until the 1920's when suddenly readers began to appreciate the work. It is now, of course, a classic. Henry Thoreau also resorted to self financing in order to publish and hardly sold any books. Well after his death his works finally became appreciated and he is now recognized as one of the great American writers...who here hasn't read Walden? Keats was another whose writing wasn't appreciated until almost 70 years after his death.

My point is that what might be considered insignificant literature today may well be the go to treatise on a particular subject somewhere down the road. All knowledge is good knowledge, reading publications and books by authors who might have been wrong in some of their predictions is an important part of learning and formulating your own hypotheses.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5679
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: THE Michael C. Lynch Thread (merged)

Unread postby pstarr » Wed 15 Feb 2017, 18:33:39

So rockdoc, are you comparing spike's opus to Melville?

I'm going to need to see some notes to on that. Okay?
/sarc
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26769
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: THE Michael C. Lynch Thread (merged)

Unread postby asg70 » Wed 15 Feb 2017, 19:29:06

Most of the writings about peak-oil in the 2004-2008 time-frame put forward bad predictions. I see very little concession to this fact on the part of the peak-oil faithful here. They seem cultishly immune to facts. As long as that's the case, there won't be any learning or hypothesizing going on, just spin-control intended to maintain a continual sense of imminent dread of TEOTWAWKI.
“If and when the oil price skewers for 6 months or more substantially above the MAP, then I will concede the Etp is inherently flawed"
--Onlooker, 1/1/2018
asg70
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1463
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: THE Michael C. Lynch Thread (merged)

Unread postby pstarr » Wed 15 Feb 2017, 20:14:08

spike wrote:I'm sure there are dead people who've sold more books, but how did you figure out I sold 24?

So Amazon shows 2 reviews. From Quora: low, middle and high estimates (based on a complex model I did not validate) that would be a low of 40 sales to a high of 1,200 (middle is 280). I apologize for under counting. You have outsold many, yet to catch up to:

Children of the Matrix: How an Interdimensional Race has Controlled the World for Thousands of Years-and Still Does Paperback – April 1, 2001
by David Icke (Author)
4.0 out of 5 stars 126 customer reviews


Who's paying AdamB? :-x More reviews. Squid :o
/sarc
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26769
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: THE Michael C. Lynch Thread (merged)

Unread postby AdamB » Wed 15 Feb 2017, 21:08:49

asg70 wrote:Most of the writings about peak-oil in the 2004-2008 time-frame put forward bad predictions.


Sure. No different than those made in the 1990's, or Colin's call for it in the late 1980's, or Jimmy's "running out" version from the 1970's. They aren't "bad predictions" though, when the authors should have been at least a little familiar with how the same calls had been made before, understood why they went wrong, and at least had the basic decency to not make the same mistakes. That is just ignorance.

asg70 wrote: I see very little concession to this fact on the part of the peak-oil faithful here.


Why would you? Some think peak oil happened back then. Some said it just yesterday, and then provided graphs contradicting their own point, with TWO other possible peak oil dates. No need to concede anything when you just say things that aren't true, and can pretend everyone should live in your alternate reality.

asg70 wrote:They seem cultishly immune to facts.


And there is nothing wrong with that as long as you understand one more tidbit. When something is about belief (like religion), facts are irrelevant. All that matters is belief. From which is derived the ability to then say things that are contradicted by reality, believe them, and repeat them, as though they are true. It is just that simple.

asg70 wrote: As long as that's the case, there won't be any learning or hypothesizing going on, just spin-control intended to maintain a continual sense of imminent dread of TEOTWAWKI.


Peak oil was once a wonderful triggering event for a person wanting an excuse to buy gold, guns, ammo, or build a bunker, grow their own food, whatever. Rather than just announcing they wanted to do this thing, and then changing their life to accomplish it, they daydreamed up the NEED to do whatever they wanted to do using peak oil. Made it easier to explain to their friends and family perhaps? Peak oil made me do it?

In case you haven't noticed, this isn't really a peak oil website any more. When peak oil imploded as a nice triggering event, they switched over to climate change, with heavy does of politics as a minor topic.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 3762
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: THE Michael C. Lynch Thread (merged)

Unread postby pstarr » Wed 15 Feb 2017, 22:23:49

AdamB wrote:
asg70 wrote:Most of the writings about peak-oil in the 2004-2008 time-frame put forward bad predictions.


Sure. No different than those made in the 1990's, or Colin's call for it in the late 1980's, or Jimmy's "running out" version from the 1970's. They aren't "bad predictions" though, when the authors should have been at least a little familiar with how the same calls had been made before, understood why they went wrong, and at least had the basic decency to not make the same mistakes. That is just ignorance.

Either bring your friend Colin Campbell into the debate, or stop using his name as your whipping boy. It's cheap and pointless. Makes you look like a moron again.

AdamB wrote:
asg70 wrote: I see very little concession to this fact on the part of the peak-oil faithful here.


Why would you? Some think peak oil happened back then. Some said it just yesterday, and then provided graphs contradicting their own point, with TWO other possible peak oil dates. No need to concede anything when you just say things that aren't true, and can pretend everyone should live in your alternate reality.

AdamB, your buddy is an idiot. Peak oil is not a religion. Human and religious exceptionalism is the religion. Peak oil is simple science. The planet earth is limited. Stuff runs out, such as oil, H3, phosphorus. Sorry :cry: Wait a minute! You two morons don't seriously believe in abiotic oil 8O Seriously

AdamB wrote:
asg70 wrote:They seem cultishly immune to facts.


And there is nothing wrong with that as long as you understand one more tidbit. When something is about belief (like religion), facts are irrelevant. All that matters is belief. From which is derived the ability to then say things that are contradicted by reality, believe them, and repeat them, as though they are true. It is just that simple.

It's called Techtopia. It's full of robots and happy interns in white coat

AdamB wrote:
asg70 wrote: As long as that's the case, there won't be any learning or hypothesizing going on, just spin-control intended to maintain a continual sense of imminent dread of TEOTWAWKI.


Peak oil was once a wonderful triggering event for a person wanting an excuse to buy gold, guns, ammo, or build a bunker, grow their own food, whatever. Rather than just announcing they wanted to do this thing, and then changing their life to accomplish it, they daydreamed up the NEED to do whatever they wanted to do using peak oil. Made it easier to explain to their friends and family perhaps? Peak oil made me do it?

I have all that stuff. You guys want to come and visit? Gotta get through the gate first lol

AdamB wrote:In case you haven't noticed, this isn't really a peak oil website any more. When peak oil imploded as a nice triggering event, they switched over to climate change, with heavy does of politics as a minor topic.

they got sick of your trolling. I enjoy it. Call me wacky lol
/sarc
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26769
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: THE Michael C. Lynch Thread (merged)

Unread postby spike » Thu 16 Feb 2017, 11:55:10

It's not that Campbell, Simmons, Deffeyes, etc were wrong, it's WHY they were wrong. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellyn ... 962e985c56
Campbell, Laherrere and Deffeyes relied on math that was simply invalid (but copied by many others). I have several chapters in my book which explain what they did wrong.
Simmons never had much behind his arguments. There is no real evidence in his book that the Saudis are about to experience a peak, just claims that the papers show "problems" as if there were no other places that experienced problems.
User avatar
spike
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon 15 Nov 2004, 03:00:00

Re: THE Michael C. Lynch Thread (merged)

Unread postby AdamB » Thu 16 Feb 2017, 13:43:38

spike wrote:It's not that Campbell, Simmons, Deffeyes, etc were wrong, it's WHY they were wrong. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellyn ... 962e985c56
Campbell, Laherrere and Deffeyes relied on math that was simply invalid (but copied by many others). I have several chapters in my book which explain what they did wrong.
Simmons never had much behind his arguments. There is no real evidence in his book that the Saudis are about to experience a peak, just claims that the papers show "problems" as if there were no other places that experienced problems.


Someone famous once said about Simmons, I forget who, and am paraphrasing from memory, that "if you want to understand something about reservoir dynamics in oil fields, you ask a reservoir engineer, not an accountant", or words to that effect. :)
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 3762
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: THE Michael C. Lynch Thread (merged)

Unread postby pstarr » Thu 16 Feb 2017, 14:30:29

Spike, time for another talent search. Adam's failed his assignment.
/sarc
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26769
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: THE Michael C. Lynch Thread (merged)

Unread postby Cog » Thu 16 Feb 2017, 16:08:06

pstarr wrote:Spike, time for another talent search. Adam's failed his assignment.


Seems to me he is doing quite well compared to the doom predictions offered by others.
User avatar
Cog
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 9840
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Metro-East Illinois

Re: THE Michael C. Lynch Thread (merged)

Unread postby AdamB » Thu 16 Feb 2017, 16:09:45

spike wrote:It's not that Campbell, Simmons, Deffeyes, etc were wrong, it's WHY they were wrong. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellyn ... 962e985c56
Campbell, Laherrere and Deffeyes relied on math that was simply invalid (but copied by many others). I have several chapters in my book which explain what they did wrong.
Simmons never had much behind his arguments. There is no real evidence in his book that the Saudis are about to experience a peak, just claims that the papers show "problems" as if there were no other places that experienced problems.


From a scientific perspective, it is one step worse than the WHY Spike. It is that when their claims came and went, dispensed with by a reality that their ideas or models could not accommodate, they then didn't LEARN from that, and build better models. The USGS does it, the EIA does it, the agency formerly known as MMS has done it, even the EPA and the climate folks do it, Jim Smith at SMU, Rystad, most all of the folks who have analyzed the development of continuous accumulations over the years, to anyone with a scientific background this is where the real work is, in the learning. They should have. And yet they chose not to.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 3762
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: THE Michael C. Lynch Thread (merged)

Unread postby asg70 » Thu 16 Feb 2017, 19:15:44

AdamB wrote:In case you haven't noticed, this isn't really a peak oil website any more.


Apparently so. The only time the topic comes up is in the context of a nasty exchange of ad hominem attacks. One would assume that if the issue were still topical that the discussion on the domain "peakoil.com" would be, um, more vibrant and diverse. It just seems that as the number of active posters has dwindled down to single-digits that the polarization and zealotry has gone off the charts. I'm kind of searching for a moderate voice of reason here and not finding any. Seems like if someone's vision of the oil markets can't somehow be linked up to some source of moral outrage then it isn't worth sharing.
“If and when the oil price skewers for 6 months or more substantially above the MAP, then I will concede the Etp is inherently flawed"
--Onlooker, 1/1/2018
asg70
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1463
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: THE Michael C. Lynch Thread (merged)

Unread postby Plantagenet » Thu 16 Feb 2017, 19:45:29

spike wrote:Simmons never had much behind his arguments. There is no real evidence in his book that the Saudis are about to experience a peak....


I guess if you ignore the facts in Simmon's book then there isn't much evidence there.

But wait! Maybe the facts are important here? Maybe facts have something to do with evidence? Can you comprehend that idea?

If so, then lets examine the question of whether or not KSA is "about to experience a peak" as you put it.

Simmons pointed out in his book that the amount of oil that has already been produced from Ghawar is enormous. The fact that a huge amount of oil has already been produced at Ghawar is indisputable. Are you with me so far on that FACT or do I have to explain it all again for you?

OK...if you now understand the basic FACTS on how much oil has already been produced then lets take the next step. What is the best estimate of total recoverable oil at Ghawar? Here things are more subject to interpretation because ARAMCO, like many oil companies, doesn't share all their data. So Simmons looked at the available data and made a reasonable guess.

Still with me on this? OK----here's the complicated part. Simmons did some Mathematics. He SUBTRACTED the amount of oil that has already been produced from a best guess estimate of recoverable reserves and estimated the remaining oil in the reservoir.

OK---last step coming. Simmons then did some more MATHEMATICS. He divided the estimate of the remaining oil in Ghawar by the average annual production rate (which is another known FACT) to get an estimate of how much longer Ghawar can produce at the present rate.

Simmons concluded from the FACTS mentioned above that Ghawar would peak soon. Given the FACTS he had available to work with, his conclusion seems reasonable to me.

Cheers!

Image
Ghawar may be the largest and most prolific conventional oil field on earth, but it isn't infinite. At some point oil production will peak and then fall at Ghawar.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20754
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: THE Michael C. Lynch Thread (merged)

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Thu 16 Feb 2017, 23:15:14

I guess if you ignore the facts in Simmon's book then there isn't much evidence there.

But wait! Maybe the facts are important here? Maybe facts have something to do with evidence? Can you comprehend that idea?

If so, then lets examine the question of whether or not KSA is "about to experience a peak" as you put it.

Simmons pointed out in his book that the amount of oil that has already been produced from Ghawar is enormous. The fact that a huge amount of oil has already been produced at Ghawar is indisputable. Are you with me so far on that FACT or do I have to explain it all again for you?


Actually that is not what Simmons mostly wrote about in his book....perhaps you actually didn't read it.
What he did spend a lot of time doing was suggesting a bunch of papers he had supposedly read from SPE indicated that Ghawar was in trouble.
As it turns out (and I pointed to this a number of years back on the Twighlight in the Desert thread) he either didn't actually read anything other than the abstracts (you need a membership to SPE to get anything more than the abstract) or he didn't understand what the papers were actually saying. I actually read all of the papers he referenced (at the time I had a membership with SPE) and as it turns out where he reported the authors had indicated a serious problem and left it at that the authors had actually identified a problem and then spent the majority of the paper indicating how that problem was solved or was being solved.

And as to the reserves in Ghawar we now have two independent audits from Gaffney Cline & Associates and DeGolyer and MacNaughton two of the largest firms involved in reserve audits that indicate agreement with the official numbers Saudi Arabia has been saying for reserves. We don't know if that is P1 or P2 but there weren't a bunch of alarm bells going off and the Saudis wouldn't be listing on exchanges that required the maximum amount of reporting transparency unless they had little to hide.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5679
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: THE Michael C. Lynch Thread (merged)

Unread postby spike » Fri 17 Feb 2017, 11:40:19

Thanks, rockdoc, that conforms to my perception. I heard from a reliable source that, indeed, he only read the abstracts. But I pointed out the many of his mistakes and contradictions in my paper https://books.google.com/books/about/Cr ... RFAAAACAAJ (which cites some others who made more technical critiques).
Simmons actually was asked why, if all of the papers he was citing had been presented to the petroleum engineering community, none of them saw the danger he perceived, and he said it was probably because as a banker he was better at seeing the big picture.
User avatar
spike
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon 15 Nov 2004, 03:00:00

Re: THE Michael C. Lynch Thread (merged)

Unread postby Plantagenet » Fri 17 Feb 2017, 11:54:23

spike wrote:Simmons actually was asked why, if all of the papers he was citing had been presented to the petroleum engineering community, none of them saw the danger he perceived, and he said it was probably because as a banker he was better at seeing the big picture.


How hard is it to see that if Ghawar has already produced most of its reserves, then the remaining oil in Ghawar will eventually be used up as well? Thats really a very simple concept, but a large number of people are quite incapable of facing that inevitable reality.

Cheers!

Image
The assumption that oil production at the Ghawar oil field in Saudi Arabia is not on a path to peak and then go into decline is a classic example of magical thinking :lol:
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20754
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: THE Michael C. Lynch Thread (merged)

Unread postby asg70 » Fri 17 Feb 2017, 12:25:02

Note the language. "eventually". "on a path". "not unlimited".

Nobody's disputing the finite nature of oil, not even Michael Lynch. Oil has been finite since drilling first began. We're now about a decade beyond the time that Simmons and company predicted peaks. Hubbert's curve was supposed to form the basis of a prediction methodology. The methodologies failed to the point where while YES, there's reason to be concerned about a post-peak world, there's no longer a way to accurately predict when that will occur.

Not having any way to tease out a prediction via science means the discussion falls back to individual predictions based on little more than hunches and predisposition. It's the equivalent to people betting on college sports.
“If and when the oil price skewers for 6 months or more substantially above the MAP, then I will concede the Etp is inherently flawed"
--Onlooker, 1/1/2018
asg70
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1463
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: onlooker and 15 guests