To answer you directly Taskforce:
If in order for me to come on this forum and post I must:
A. Be PC about everything
B. Be serious about everything
C. have an equivilent college education and background experience in the subject matter

Then I will:
A. Choose to go elsewhere
B. Stay until I am escorted out by the authorities

Has Mr Lynch ever thought that Mr. Campbell has far more experience then he does? and on and on.......

Lets not even take into consideration all the "coming out" that has been going on lately like Chevrons PO website and Volvo's PDF showing a PO chart etc etc.

When I learned of PO there was none of this.
I feel the need to restate everything Matt Savinar has on his website because its apparent that most of what he said is not sinking in and/or being taken seriously!!!

Its easy to see that Mr Lynch and those that think as he does, is or will soon be in the minority amungst their peers.

I can only hope that he and the rest of the "educated elite" will find the "tipping point" that Aaron speaks of soon and begin using his/their knowledge to help us realize rather then remain in denial.

And do we have enough data to know we wont peak in the next 6 years???
Thats totally speculative and unfounded.

Do you honestly believe current reserve estimates with the knowledge that these estimates increased significantly when it was indeed very convenient for Opec nations to say they have more in order to be able to sell more based on quotas???

Talk about far fetched.

SA may have 260 billion or more and then again they may have 100 billion or less.

I prefer to judge them by their deeds not their words.
They are attempting yet failing to help prices remain stable so alternatives will not be feasible and they can no longer "flood the market with oil so they are doing their best to flood the market with words".

para quote from the recent NY times article.

Sadly, Mike and co. seem to believe these words and many more that are purely based on speculation.

Wouldn't that be a good thing though?

I don't think anything will change as long as the status quo is unaffected.

Gee, if you would have read my post you would know that i do not. It's right there, a Saudi Peak scenario. That means that they do not have that amount of reserves in that scenario. My point was to prove all this "doomerosity" of: If saudi arabia peaks the world peaks. Is untrue.

You could also judge SA on their excellent historical record.

There is a difference between knowing stuff and knowing that you know too little and just shut up because you add nothing of value.

Yes we have enough data to know that we will not peak in the coming next 6 years geologically. We do not have enough data to know exactly what the amount of oil production increase will be but we can make a nice estimate. And it is not speculative and unfounded. It's all over the web.

For instance a block of data, which is very into detail:

The Benguela, Belize, Lobito and Tomboco oil fields hold recoverable reserves amounting to 440 million barrels and are located in the deep waters of Block 14 (Eni's interest 20%). The project provides for two phases; the first one between 2005 and 2006 for the development of Benguela/Belize by means of the installation of a Compliant Piled Tower (CPT) at a depth of 400 meters; the second one between 2006 and 2007 for the development of Lobito/Tomboco through the drilling of underwater wells an their linkage to the production facilities of the CPT. A total of 52 development wells will be drilled (31 producing and 21 water injection wells). Production is scheduled to start in 2006 by means of the Kuito FPSO vessel, reaching a peak of 34,000 barrels/day net to Eni in 2008. Eni's share of capital expenditure amounts to approximately dollar 440 million.

Non-OPEC oil has peaked. This is official.
Saudi Arabia is the biggest part of OPEC oil. This is a well-known fact.

And you still defend that the world won't peak when Saudi Arabia peaks? You mean, that the OPEC minus Saudi Arabia can compensate for both the decline of Saudi Arabia and non-OPEC oil? I find that extremely hard to believe.

Our debts are bad, but not insurmountable. And people still loan money to Russia, despite it's 1997 (?) fiscal collapse.
Long-term, we might be overtaken by others, but that's a different matter.
Mike Lynch

Well, a lack of oil finds despite drilling, falling production due to geological, not political factors, stuff like that. And more than one bad year.
Last year I posed the question of why Colin Campbell thinks that the current high prices prove that peak oil is here or near, since production is rising sharply (contradicting his theory). He published that in his newsletter, without comment (but a sarcastic title). He has never responded to ANY of my criticisms, actually.
Mike Lynch

I'll try to read the whole thing later, but first, note that the recent graph is ten years out of date. Also, their earlier work, which you graciously post, proved incorrect. A later update showed improving EROEI.

But my recollection is that they don't actually explain the source of EROEI, except one unpublished academic paper from 20 years or more ago. So, the credibility is suspect. Bob also has a long record of being a bit off the wall.

Oh, their US oil production model, done about 10 years ago, proved to seriously underpredict future oil production.
Mike Lynch

Why do you say non-OPEC has peaked? It is still rising, with non-FSU a bit slow, but expected to grow rapidly this year.
And peaking is almost meaningless. Many countries have peaked, declined and then recovered.
Mike Lynch

Well if you can prove to me that non opec has peaked then it differs. But i have seen no prove as yet to date. In fact, non OPEC is probably going to increase more then OPEC measured in Gross production increases (not figuring in depletion)

2 years? More?



How will you know?



Does where the finds are matter. The size & quality of the finds? (sweet/sour)

Where would your vote go Mike?

URR Poll

And what does Mike have to say about ChevronTexaco's latest advertisement /PR campaign that essentially states we're at or near the peak?
http://willyoujoinus.com

Mike would say "Peaking is meaningless" as he has already stated.

The US didnt "recover".

I think we would need at least 5 bad years, given that you have terrible data lags, etc. (for reserves added). But it's the same as with production, if you see a political cause, you can discount it.
For example, Kuwait, Libya and Venezuela declined by about 6 mb/d total in the 1970s, because of nationalization of their industries and a desire to conserve. That's political, not geological. The US decline is geological. A strike or war is political. Indonesia is a tougher case, because fiscal regime discouraged drilling. It will increase again, but how much is hard to say.
Where the finds are is not, in the long run, too important. It's a global market. And quality is overemphasized; you can take the worst crud in the world and upgrade it for a relatively small cost.
Mike Lynch

Define URR. Usually, it refers to current price, technology, etc. At $25/bbl, most were saying 3-3.5 trillion as of the technology available in the last decade. That's pretty good, but remember, it's still conservative. I would guess by 2025 we'll be seeing 4-5 trillion estimates.
Mike Lynch