You got me there. I suppose when my local gas station starts demanding some weight in gold as payment for a tank of gasoline I'll start to worry about it.

ian807 said:




Growth will stop long before we hit 1:1. The wheels will fall off as monetary systems collapse (store shelves go bare and gas pumps will run dry). With massive stimulous coming from all the CB's to compensate for decling imports/exports and huge job losses throughout the developed economies (and many of the not so developed economies), it looks like we are already just about there.


Hold on to your hats, the next couple of years are going to be one hell of a wakeup call!

Thanks You for correcting this:


Available Energy

5 years you been saying this one Short. ( another Short! )

You think maybe your calls about Americans freezing in the dark...about now ( or even sooner! )....aren't quite what they were cracked up to be? Maybe you could change the "couple of years" to "couple of decades"?

I loved your EROEI equation in your Available Energy post by the way.

How would you know, you were not around here five years ago! Then again, maybe you were one of the ones who flunked one of my classes?

Oh, I simply call up whatever brand of Doom is being pushed out the door today, jump into forum search, and see if the poster has changed their ideas, considering how poorly peak oil predictions have worked out.

ShortOnOil says, Jan,2005

"In five years this will read: US Citizenry Freeze Despite Assitance"

I was wondering, what with 5 years right around the corner, what you imagine the count on frozen Americans might be this winter?

As far as "classes", no, I haven't taken any of your "classes". But if you actually have any data on EROEI within the industry and how it was calculated to determine the fit points for your equation, I would certainly be interested in that.

Anyone who called Peak from early 2005 until sometime early next year (2010) probably will be viewed as nothing short of clairvoyant in the future. The only debate which needs real study now is when decline becomes a real problem. Currently it's not a huge issue, but its still one we are ignoring because of folks like you.

SOS,

Debunking the concept and reality of PO in the largest economic contraction/recession the globe has seen since GD1 is a fool's errand.
You keep at it though. Its pretty easy to watch short term trends and have your fun in here. Most of us who have been around for a while aren't here for that.


Your obvious and ridiculous assumption that the world somehow can continue it's upward path of production is currently in very dire trouble.

No they won't. They'll be called hangers-on of a weak predictive methodology which has been used for some 20 years now to predict peak, and the only reason it MIGHT have gotten it right is because peak has been declared steadily ever since then, activating the "even a broken clock is right twice a day" analogy.



Wrong. The secretary of ASPO has been writing scientific articles about it. Did you not get your subscription to them as of late, or is your information supply limited to only the random social commentary which tends to get confused with science in this place?



I'm debunking nothing. PO happened and everyone is bummed out that the world didn't turn out the way it had been hoped, and might be particularly upset because even AFTER THE FACT people are still writing articles about "gee, maybe it will happen in the next 10 years!", just like the thread title implies.

So tell me, how awe inspiring of an event it must be if AFTER it happens, people are still thinking it might be 10 years in the future?

Ummm?

No one called multiple peaks. That is in your imagination -sense.

Your need to leave your desk downstairs, and go up where the regular people are and there is fresh air and stuff. This is getting stale

Which is actually part of the problem. Based on the number of times entire countries have peaked more than once ( as well as the globe as a whole ) if any peaker could point out a single peak prophet who took this obvious fact into account when they were doing their models and projections in the elusive science of "Depletion", I would buy that persons book tomorrow.

I do not expect someone who invents new science degree's randomly to try and explain how the multiple peaks in fields, areas, states, countries and the globe to understand. It does, after all, involve reading.

An oil field has to go into a real terminal nosedive before you can truly call definitive peak, otherwise it's a bumpy plateau. The deal with Russia was a one-time second-wind due to the fall of the soviet union and the infusion of new money and tech. I don't expect the North Sea or Mexico rebound anytime soon.

Peakers did not expect the UK or Mexico to rebound the SECOND time either, in Mexico's case, perhaps the THIRD time. Or Venezuela. Or Saudi Arabia. Thats part of the problem. As more regions have established the ability to peak multiple times, the peak mythology has not followed suit with any models reflecting such a possibility. None that I have seen anyway.

Rebound? WTF? UK and Mexico are undeniably both on post-peak petroleum nosedives and most certainly SOOL. As for Venezuela, no one questions it has also peaked (except perhaps -senseless cornies), it but some consider the low-grade gunk dirtying up the Orinonco to be petroleum. Granted the stuff is made from hydrocarbons and could foreseeablely be turned into transport fuel in minute amounts, but evidence suggests otherwise.

We'll just have to wait and see

Why don't we just start with the basics?

Let me ask a question which I assume you will not answer...again...because it might require a concept outside of Peaker mythology.

How long after any given peak must we wait to determine if in fact it is the last, final, and definitive peak?

For example, here is all the oil production for the state of North Dakota since 1952.

http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/sdc/publicati ... 8Press.pdf

Obviously a bell shaped curve.

Should peak have been declared in 1974, for 1966? Should it have been declared in 1994 for 1985?

Simple question....well....bad assumption considering who this question is pointed at, but a valid one. How long after ONE peak do we have to wait to decide that ONE peak is all we are getting?

The topic of this article is someone declaring that maybe, just maybe, we have another peak coming between now and 2020. Why in the WORLD would they do that? Because they realize they might have the same problem as North Dakota. So how long do we need to wait to be sure?

Who is more foolish, the natural fool or the foolish one who argues with them?