John_A wrote:
No wonder you are always providing links with no independent thought.
Read the original work. There is this big number, bigger than current reserves, he calls it "FUTURE DISCOVERIES" to paraphrase. And then he builds out an increasing flowrate until flowrate balances against discovered stuff and future to be discovered stuff. The IEA is doing the same thing, relying on undiscovered stuff to forecast a future flowrate.
P. 9 refers to resources of a "fixed magnitude." He also refers to an "ultimate cumulative production" that is less than "the quantity of resources initially present" from which he derives production curves. He does refer to adjustments on p. 16 but I think that is already inputted in his calculations, which means a peak for crude oil in 1995.
The IEA counters this argument by showing that conventional production will flatten out.
Of course you aren't. Based on precedent it is unlikely you actually read the links you provide. You in the past have been unaware of when they were written, the details contained therein and it leads you to places you would just as soon not be when someone takes the time to read them and understand them.
I read the report in the past and am reading it again, and I don't see what you are claiming. Fig. 20 (p. 22) shows ultimate global oil production not flattening out but dropping after 1995.
Perhaps you are referring to nuclear energy mentioned in p. 36?
ralfy wrote:It means that until the forecasting experts consider the idea to have merit, it certainly might not. Rockman has provided insight as to the uselessness in industry of this metric, it is therefore not a surprise that other experts ignore it.
You're confusing three things: the industry that uses profitability as its metric, those who look at rate of flow, and those who look at production based on reserves.
For oil producers, it's the first that matters. For those in the real economy, it's the second. For pollyannas, it's the third.
As best I can tell, you have no point. So if you consider yourself to have proven it, yet again, I won't disagree.
But you merely repeated what I am arguing, i.e., "welcome to the transition." Will the transition allow for business as usual? According to Hubbert, we should have moved to nuclear. According to the IEA, the transition should have started at least a decade ago.
Apparently you not understanding your own links applies to what everyone else writes as well.
To recap, Hubbert did not refer to conventional production flattening out. The IEA did not follow what Hubbert did. In addition, the IEA argues that even with conventional production flattening out, total production won't be enough to meet increasing demand needed for economic growth.
Of course not.
Then, what are you talking about? Hubbert refers to ultimate crude oil peaking and dropping, not flattening out. The IEA argues that crude oil won't be dropping.
Has anyone, anywhere, built a cost/supply curve to refute what the IEA published? If not, the answer to my question is "no", and yet another video link to someone saying something which is supposed to sidestep the issue is irrelevant. Disputing the IEA work is easy..show the ASPO or Alekletts cost/supply curve for resources capable of creating liquid fuels and presto...we can talk about it. Until then, there is no other information of value on this topic. One graph is all it takes....why doesn't Aleklett have one? Why doesn't someone else have one, and why isn't that in your box of cut and paste links?
I'll look for it for you and share it in my next message.