Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

"Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

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

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby DesuMaiden » Tue 16 Mar 2021, 06:26:45

@AdamB Everything I present is based on fact. Like how 2005/2006 was when half of all of the world's recoverable oil has already been extracted. You are denying it because you are afraid of the unpleasent conclusions. I do find the conclusion of a fast, steep decline in oil extraction to be unpleasent, too, but I accept this fact despite the unpleasent conclusion that it will lead to a fast collapse. Like gasoline shortages causing cars to be undriveable , the airline industry permanently shutting down (due to lack of fuel), supermarkets no longer receiving deliveries and thus getting emptied of food and other essential supplies (due to supply chain failures and fuel shortages) and possibly even the electricity grid permanently going out (due to supply chain failures, lack of fuel for generating electricity, lack of maintenence of the grid, etc).
History repeats itself. Just everytime with different characters and players.
DesuMaiden
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 881
Joined: Mon 06 Oct 2014, 16:00:31

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby Pops » Tue 16 Mar 2021, 09:10:52

DesuMaiden wrote:@AdamB Everything I present is based on fact. Like how 2005/2006 was when half of all of the world's recoverable oil has already been extracted.

Prove this.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19226
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby DesuMaiden » Tue 16 Mar 2021, 14:32:57

Pops wrote:
DesuMaiden wrote:@AdamB Everything I present is based on fact. Like how 2005/2006 was when half of all of the world's recoverable oil has already been extracted.

Prove this.

what good would that do if you are likely a shill who would deny facts? I already suspect you are a shill because you present blatantly dishonest information. Keep on denying reality until everything falls apart. I know you are a shill because you deny well-documented facts to mislead people. The 1/2 way point literally happened in 2005, but what good would that do when shills like you will deny it? I will not respond to shills like you any further.
History repeats itself. Just everytime with different characters and players.
DesuMaiden
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 881
Joined: Mon 06 Oct 2014, 16:00:31

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 16 Mar 2021, 14:41:26

DesuMaiden wrote:@AdamB Everything I present is based on fact. Like how 2005/2006 was when half of all of the world's recoverable oil has already been extracted.


I use IHS to determine how much recoverable oil has been extracted. Please reference your source, because it appears to be wildly uninformed compared to the best one commercially available.

DesuMaiden wrote:You are denying it because you are afraid of the unpleasent conclusions.


I am denying it because it is wrong.

DesuMaiden wrote:I do find the conclusion of a fast, steep decline in oil extraction to be unpleasent, too, but I accept this fact despite the unpleasent conclusion that it will lead to a fast collapse.


There is a reference for a real live geologist predicting the same thing in 1989. His name was Dr. Colin Campbell. Reference available upon request. Any reason why he claimed the same and was wrong, and now you'll get it right with far less understanding of anything oily? Including the same claim from 15 years ago, advocated at this website and others? Where have you been since the modern peak oil movement began, burying your head in the sand?

I love good ol' doomer porn fantasy game playing as much as the next old fart. But you don't need to make up ridiculous oil information which you are thoroughly uninformed about, you can just claim nonsense doomer porn like the other doom fantasy league players.
StarvingPuutyTat says: I'm so confident in my TOTAL COLLAPSE is IMMINENT prediction that I stake my entire reputation on it. It will happen this year. - Aug 3-2020

Mustang19 says: Mods, I am just here to troll the trolls. I mean no harm.
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 6452
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 16 Mar 2021, 14:49:29

DesuMaiden wrote:
Pops wrote:
DesuMaiden wrote:@AdamB Everything I present is based on fact. Like how 2005/2006 was when half of all of the world's recoverable oil has already been extracted.

Prove this.

what good would that do if you are likely a shill who would deny facts?


Look in a mirror and answer that question. Best I can tell, you haven't mentioned a fact yet, just the usual recycling of the kind of information that peak oilers have used to declare peak oil a half dozen time since Colin Campbell got involved.

DesuMaiden wrote: The 1/2 way point literally happened in 2005, but what good would that do when shills like you will deny it?


What good does it do when it is wrong? Amateur level gaslighting of oil and gas faux facts is very Trumpian, but not useful to the conversation.
StarvingPuutyTat says: I'm so confident in my TOTAL COLLAPSE is IMMINENT prediction that I stake my entire reputation on it. It will happen this year. - Aug 3-2020

Mustang19 says: Mods, I am just here to troll the trolls. I mean no harm.
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 6452
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby DesuMaiden » Tue 16 Mar 2021, 19:24:08

AdamB wrote:
DesuMaiden wrote:
Pops wrote:
DesuMaiden wrote:@AdamB Everything I present is based on fact. Like how 2005/2006 was when half of all of the world's recoverable oil has already been extracted.

Prove this.

what good would that do if you are likely a shill who would deny facts?


Look in a mirror and answer that question. Best I can tell, you haven't mentioned a fact yet, just the usual recycling of the kind of information that peak oilers have used to declare peak oil a half dozen time since Colin Campbell got involved.

DesuMaiden wrote: The 1/2 way point literally happened in 2005, but what good would that do when shills like you will deny it?


What good does it do when it is wrong? Amateur level gaslighting of oil and gas faux facts is very Trumpian, but not useful to the conversation.

Nobody said that the decline in oil extraction would necessarily begin right after half of the reserves where depleted. What Colin Campbell and many other reputable peak oil experts correctly said was "if decline happens right after the half way point of depletion, it would be a 2-3% decline/year". Clearly, the governments of the world delayed the inevitable decline by ramping up production shortly after the half way point was reached. But the inevitable permanent decline in oil production could only be delayed temporarily. In 2018/2019, oil production reached an all-time peak. But the decline of oil production hasn't been felt yet because Coronavirus has decreased oil demand by about 10% (from 90 million barrels per day to 82-83 million barrels per day) . That is because the tourism industry has entered a significant decline (thus loweing the demand for oil because of fewer people traveling by oil-guzzling planes) and many more people started working from home (thus also lowering the demand for oil since many people stopped making long, daily commutes to work via cars).

But delaying the decline by a decade only means that, when the decline becomes inevitable, the decline would be at a much faster rate. Given that around 75% of all recoverable oil reserves were depleted by 2018 to 2019, it would only be logical to conclude that the decline rate might be a rapid 6 to 7% per year just by simple arithmetic correct? Of course, this conclusion is undeniable unless you go back to the incorrect premise that "2005/2006 was not the date when half the oil was depleted". Sorry, but 2005 to 2006 was literally the date when half of all oil reserves were depleted, and a mere 2-3% decline rate would only have been possible if the decline occurred at 1/2 depletion.

The world had about 2 trillion barrels of recoverable oil at the beginning of the oil age in 1859. By 2005, half of that 2 trillion barrels was depleted. So 1 trillion barrels remained in 2005. Given that we consume about 30 to 35 billion barrels of oil per year around the world, just by doing simple math, you will reach the conclusion that by 2018 to 2019, we would only have around 500 billion barrels left, which is approximately 1/4 of the 2 trillion barrels this planet originally had. Or more specifically 3/4 of all recoverable oil has been depleted ; as in 1,500 billion of the total 2,000 billion barrels have been depleted by 2018/2018. And 2 years later, we would have depleted around 80% of all of the recoverable oil correct? Or about 400 billion barrels of oil remain as of 2021, just by doing some simple math.
History repeats itself. Just everytime with different characters and players.
DesuMaiden
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 881
Joined: Mon 06 Oct 2014, 16:00:31

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby DesuMaiden » Tue 16 Mar 2021, 19:47:38

OutcastPhilosopher wrote:
DesuMaiden wrote:
OutcastPhilosopher wrote:
DesuMaiden wrote:Back in 2005-2006, about 1/2 of all recoverable oil was already extracted. That was when the world experienced the first peak of global oil extraction, which lead to the 2008 to 2009 economic recession. Briefly, in 2008, the price of oil spiked at 147 usd /barrel. Note that I use the term "extraction" rather than "production" because the former is what we actually do...extract oil; we don't "produce" oil.

From 2005 to 2010, conventional oil extraction reached a global peak, which prevented any further economic growth. Thus leading to a major recession in 2008. The peak of oil extraction is reached when about 1/2 of all of the recoverable oil has been extracted, and that was in 2005-2006.

However, the elites of the world didn't want oil extraction to enter a permanent decline in 2008-2009, so they ramped up the rate of oil extraction from 2010 onwards. So rather than let global oil extraction rates enter a natural decline once 1/2 of all recoverable oil has been used up, the elites wanted economic growth to continue. Thus, they ramped up the level of oil extraction from 2010 onwards to delay the inevtable decline in oil extraction. So global oil extraction ,from 2010 onwardly slightly grew for a few more years, until 2018 when the all-time peak of global oil extraction was reached.

Then Coronavirus struck in 2020 , leading to a 10% decrease in oil demand. And this decrease in oil demand --caused by covid-19 --is probably the only reason why we haven't felt oil shortages yet. Once the covid-19 pandemic is over, oil demand will go back to what it was in 2019 (before the pandemic), but this time the rate of oil extraction will enter a permanent decline. Thus, causing a massive shortage of oil supply because of the demand outstripping the supply.

Because the peak of global oil extraction was delayed by the elites, the rate of decline of oil extraction will be much greater than if they let it naturally decline when 1/2 of the recoverable oil was gone. We probably already depleted around 80% of all recoverable oil this planet ever had. At the very least. Meaning the rate of decline of oil extraction will be a very steep curve. Rather than a relatively slow decline of 2-3% per year if decline was to happen after 50-60% depletion, we will now have a rapid decline of 6 to 7% per year from after 80-85% depletion.

So yes, ironically, by delaying the global peak of oil extraction by ramping up extraction rates, we lead to a much steeper decline rate when the decline became inevitable. And due to the rapid decline rates, industrial civilization will rapidly collapse rather than slowly decay.


Yes. We will have a seneca cliff style collapse.

It is reflected in the insane money printing. This thing is going off the cliff.

Let me give you a quote for context.

"It may not be profitable to slow decline...simply put, more money can be made--more quickly--by accelerating decline, bankrupting the country, starving people, and selling off assets than by investing it in rebuilding under a new economic paradigm or by trying to soften the crash"

The above quote was from Michael Ruppert's book, Confronting Collapse. Let that sink in for you. I suspected this ,for many years, to be true. Given how the government vehemently denies peak oil, it seems like they are intentionally try to accelerate the rate at which things fall apart. Also, when you notice how everything is becoming increasingly more unsustainable--longer and more fragile supply chains, more and more imported and exported goods and services, globalization increasing, rather than decreasing, during the past couple of years--it is literally true that more money can be made from accelerating the decline.



Well, I am not sure if I completely agree with that because I believe the "System" operates in a feedback loop. Essentially, due to all of the liabilities and other matters, the money printing is going to go exponential because we have a financial system based on the equation: debt raised to the power of time. Nothing can keep up with this, which is why in hyperinflation you have people becoming quadrillionaires. Now will the "insiders" game the system and try to profit? Of course. In a declining energy environment, currency printing is going to accelerate. There is a correlation there.

The other thing that Ruppert doesn't go into, is that industrial society/financial system requires more and more complexity in order to keep us at the same place we are. This is why the longer supply chains, just in time services, etc. The "System" requires it to keep functioning.....until it cannot.

How to rebuild a new economic system? Ask yourself what would happen if the President, Federal Reserve Chairman, etc. came out on television and told everyone that Social Security was bankrupt and they would halt payments immediately. Can you imagine the outrage that people would have? The vast majority of people don't understand or comprehend the "System" at all because it has created vast dependency on it. When it fails, which it is going to, people are going to absolutely lose their minds.

You also have to take into account that all of the insiders "wealth" is tied up with the "System" also. They don't necessarily want a new system either because they are doing so much better than everyone else.

You are absolutely right. We cannot stop the train from going over the cliff, metaphorically-speaking. I never put the blame on anyone. I was simply stating that collapse is inevitable. And right now, all we are doing is circling down the drain. Simply all we can do is continue BAU until it cannot continue to function anymore. It is just a matter of time when supply chains literally start to break down, there are gasoline shortages, the airline industry permanently shuts down, hyperinflation occurs, supermarket shelves go unstocked with food and other items, and finally the electricity grid permanently goes out.
History repeats itself. Just everytime with different characters and players.
DesuMaiden
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 881
Joined: Mon 06 Oct 2014, 16:00:31

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 16 Mar 2021, 20:28:05

DesuMaiden wrote:
AdamB wrote:What good does it do when it is wrong? Amateur level gaslighting of oil and gas faux facts is very Trumpian, but not useful to the conversation.

Nobody said that the decline in oil extraction would necessarily begin right after half of the reserves where depleted.


So Hubbert's bell shaped curve, depicting that when half the resource is produced, production declines, was all a lie? You really want to claim Hubbert was a "nobody"?

DesuMaiden wrote:What Colin Campbell and many other reputable peak oil experts correctly said was "if decline happens right after the half way point of depletion, it would be a 2-3% decline/year".


Here is the reference where Colin Campbell said no such thing.

Campbell, C. J., “Oil Price Leap in the Nineties,” Noroil, December 1989.

DesuMaiden wrote: Sorry, but 2005 to 2006 was literally the date when half of all oil reserves were depleted, and a mere 2-3% decline rate would only have been possible if the decline occurred at 1/2 depletion.


And your claim is supported by which data set? IHS? Rystad? WoodMac? Just name which one you've used to make this claim, and I'll run along and check it out. Because it doesn't match the information from IHS or Rystad, so where did you get this?

DesuMaiden wrote:The world had about 2 trillion barrels of recoverable oil at the beginning of the oil age in 1859.


The world had about 12 trillion barrels of oil in place in 1859. Nansen Saleri's estimate from 2005 or so, JPT, "The Next Trillion Barrels" was the title I believe. The USGS has published that all in-place oil known to man is "technically" recoverable, a position explained by the EIA no less.

Got any other basic information you know nothing about I can clear up for you? Maybe you want to discuss definitions, like "recoverable" needs a qualifier or some sort in order for you to shrink the numbers to where you make up stories about the consequences of oil running out. Like "economic" maybe?

When are you going to provide a fact, let alone a reference to said fact?
StarvingPuutyTat says: I'm so confident in my TOTAL COLLAPSE is IMMINENT prediction that I stake my entire reputation on it. It will happen this year. - Aug 3-2020

Mustang19 says: Mods, I am just here to troll the trolls. I mean no harm.
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 6452
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 16 Mar 2021, 20:35:04

OutcastPhilosopher wrote:"It may not be profitable to slow decline...simply put, more money can be made--more quickly--by accelerating decline, bankrupting the country, starving people, and selling off assets than by investing it in rebuilding under a new economic paradigm or by trying to soften the crash"

The above quote was from Michael Ruppert's book, Confronting Collapse. Let that sink in for you. I suspected this ,for many years, to be true.


Conspiracy nutter was bad enough, now folks who committed themselves to Bellevue is your source for information? A ex-cop who used a convicted child predator as a source on information for 9/11, that is where you find gems of info?
StarvingPuutyTat says: I'm so confident in my TOTAL COLLAPSE is IMMINENT prediction that I stake my entire reputation on it. It will happen this year. - Aug 3-2020

Mustang19 says: Mods, I am just here to troll the trolls. I mean no harm.
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 6452
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 16 Mar 2021, 22:16:40

DesuMaiden wrote: Simply all we can do is continue BAU until it cannot continue to function anymore. It is just a matter of time when supply chains literally start to break down, there are gasoline shortages, the airline industry permanently shuts down, hyperinflation occurs, supermarket shelves go unstocked with food and other items, and finally the electricity grid permanently goes out.


Not necessarily. If the government would get to work right now we could have a carbon tax to wean people off fossil fuels and we could have a crash program to build nuclear power plants and solar and wind electric power plants to keep things going.

The electricity grid doesn’t have to go down.....we can run everything easily on nuclear and renewables.

But, unfortunately, Biden and the other dim witted world leaders aren’t going to take the necessary steps to save the planet. Lets put the blame where it belongs. Its NOT inevitable that we go off the Seneca Cliff——— its the fault of our very stupid and very incompetent political leaders.

Cheers!
250 million thousand people have died of covid---Joe Biden
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama

-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 24724
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby DesuMaiden » Wed 17 Mar 2021, 08:21:51

AdamB wrote:
OutcastPhilosopher wrote:"It may not be profitable to slow decline...simply put, more money can be made--more quickly--by accelerating decline, bankrupting the country, starving people, and selling off assets than by investing it in rebuilding under a new economic paradigm or by trying to soften the crash"

The above quote was from Michael Ruppert's book, Confronting Collapse. Let that sink in for you. I suspected this ,for many years, to be true.


Conspiracy nutter was bad enough, now folks who committed themselves to Bellevue is your source for information? A ex-cop who used a convicted child predator as a source on information for 9/11, that is where you find gems of info?

Ok I tried to reason with you, but now I realized that is futile because you clearly deny well-established scientific facts. And no reliable source indicates that there is 12 trillion barrels of oil. And even if there is 12 trillion barrels of oil, all we will end up doing is burning it all up, and then causing catastrophic global warming from excessive fossil fuel usage. You repeatedly deny peak oil experts, like Richard Heinberg and Colin Campbell, who state the undeniable scientific fact that the Earth originally had 2 trillion barrels of oil, and half that oil was extracted by 2005/2006. You deny these facts, despite all of the evidence I presented, which indicates you are either misinformed or trying to mislead people. Hopefully, the former is correct because I hope you aren't a disinfo agent.

Out of desperation, you are trying to convince people into thinking that industrial civilization isn't going to soon fall apart. Let me guess, you are also gonna claim that "electric cars, solar panels and wind turbines are gonna save industrial civilization" as your last resort, so that you can "prove" everything isn't soon gonna fall apart. Nice try, but that doesn't work on me. Because I know that "electric cars, solar panels and wind turbines" will never replace fossil fuels (that is a scientific fact), and those technologies are just an example of more unsustainable technofixes. There is literally nothing that can replace the edifice built by fossil fuels. Nothing.

And once the demand for oil outstrips the oil extraction rates (in the near future) things will quickly start to deteriorate. As in industrial civilization will enter a permanent and rapid decline because of the 6 to 7% decline rate/year of global oil extraction. Sorry but your techno utopian fantasy isn't coming to a reality. The apocalyptic nightmare for industrial civilization will become a reality in the next decade or two. Michael Ruppert and many other doomers were 100% correct about how peak oil (and other civilizational and environmental problems) will inevitably lead to the collapse of industrial civilization.

Civilization will probably start collapsing by the later half of the 2020s primarily due to peak oil (due to the 6 to 7% decline rate/year I mentioned earlier). And by the 2030s the decline would have gotten so severe that gasoline stations would have insufficent supplies of oil for vehicles, the airline industry would have shutdown (due to lack of fuel supplies), computers would stop being manufactured (due to insufficient supplies of rare Earth metals/fossil fuels and supply chain failures, etc), supermarket shelves would be stripped bare (due to supply chain failures and lack of fuel). And finally the electricity grid would start to permanently expire by the 2030s due to lack of fuel, lack of maintenence, supply chain failures, etc. Leading to permanent blackouts around the world.

And the final nail in the coffin would be industrial agricultural collapsing due to all of the above factors. Industrial agriculture is literally the only reason there is nearly 8 billion people on the planet right now. The main reason the human population exploded from 2 billion people to almost 8 billion people during the past 100 years was because of fossil-fuel powered industrial agriculture. Industrial agriculture literally depends on fossil fuels in every step of the production and distribution of food. Even the fertilizers are literally made out of fossil fuels. Without petrochemical-based fertilizers, agricultural soils would be unable to grow sufficient amounts of food for the human population. Thus when fossil fuels are gone, food production will plummet, leading to literally billions of people starving to death. Thus the collapse of petrochemical-based industrial agriculture will lead to a massive depopulation of the Earth, causing billions of people to die of food starvation alone.
History repeats itself. Just everytime with different characters and players.
DesuMaiden
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 881
Joined: Mon 06 Oct 2014, 16:00:31

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby Pops » Wed 17 Mar 2021, 08:33:02

DesuMaiden wrote:
Pops wrote:
DesuMaiden wrote:@AdamB Everything I present is based on fact. Like how 2005/2006 was when half of all of the world's recoverable oil has already been extracted.

Prove this.

what good would that do if you are likely a shill who would deny facts? I already suspect you are a shill because you present blatantly dishonest information. Keep on denying reality until everything falls apart. I know you are a shill because you deny well-documented facts to mislead people. The 1/2 way point literally happened in 2005, but what good would that do when shills like you will deny it? I will not respond to shills like you any further.

LOL, so as soon as you're called on your BS you give up without argument and resort to ad homs?
Pretty weak.

I was one of the first members and the first moderator so if I'm a shill then so is the whole site.
Look at the sidebar, click where it says "What is PO?"
I wrote that primer 17 years ago, I drew those pretty, smooth curves. Basically I made the same mistake you are but did it a decade before you showed up.

Look at this chart of US production, does it look like bell to you?

Image

Hubbert said:
The production rate will be zero when the reference time is zero, and the rate will again be zero when the resource is exhausted; that is to say, in the production of any resource of fixed magnitude, the production rate must begin at zero, and then after passing through one or several maxima, it must decline again to zero.

The only a priori information concerning the magnitude of the ultimate cumulative production of which we may be certain is tha tit will be less than, or at most equal to, the quantity of the resource initially present.


So, the curve will begin and end with zero, have one or more peaks and be just as high but no higher that the resource allows.

Then like everyone he made a guess at the ultimate resource, (actually used other's guess but whatever) and he came up with the cool linearization too. But they are all guesses.

He also said:
However, secondary recovery techniques are gradually being improved so that ultimately a somewhat larger but still unknown fraction of the oil underground should be extracted than is now the case. Because of the slowness of the secondary recovery process, however, it appears unlikely that any improvement that can be made within the next 10 or 15 years can have any significant effect upon the date of culmination.

I don't know if fracking is a "secondary technique" since it is employed initially but regardless, it has not only wrecked the curve because it was not slow in the least and it but increased the ultimate as well.

So, you could point to lots of different pieces of evidence, conventional plateau, fracking not expanding to other countries, low/no discoveries, majors going green, blah, blah, but you can't say oil production peaked at the "halfway point" in 2005 and be taken seriously. Pretty obvious to any observer it didn't.

Image
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19226
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby DesuMaiden » Wed 17 Mar 2021, 09:26:38

Plantagenet wrote:
DesuMaiden wrote: Simply all we can do is continue BAU until it cannot continue to function anymore. It is just a matter of time when supply chains literally start to break down, there are gasoline shortages, the airline industry permanently shuts down, hyperinflation occurs, supermarket shelves go unstocked with food and other items, and finally the electricity grid permanently goes out.


Not necessarily. If the government would get to work right now we could have a carbon tax to wean people off fossil fuels and we could have a crash program to build nuclear power plants and solar and wind electric power plants to keep things going.

The electricity grid doesn’t have to go down.....we can run everything easily on nuclear and renewables.

But, unfortunately, Biden and the other dim witted world leaders aren’t going to take the necessary steps to save the planet. Lets put the blame where it belongs. Its NOT inevitable that we go off the Seneca Cliff——— its the fault of our very stupid and very incompetent political leaders.

Cheers!

Well everything you mentioned was due to good intentions, so I applaud you for that. But I don't think nuclear fission and renewables can make up for fossil fuel depletion for several reasons.

First, nuclear fission is dependent on fossil fuels, too. Why is that the case? Because it requires fossil fuel powered machinery to extract and process/refine uranium ore into usuable nuclear fuel, and more fossil fuel powered machines to distribute uranium fuel to the nuclear power plants. And the construction of nuclear power plants also requires massive amounts of fossil fuels i.e. all of the cement and metals used to produce a nuclear power plant requires fossil fuels. Also, uranium is another finite and nonrenewable resource. If we try to ramp up nuclear fission to replace fossil fuels for electricity generation, the global supplies of uranium would be completely depleted in maybe three or four decades at best.

And there are many reasons why photovoltaic and wind turbines can't replace fossil fuels for electricity generation. First of all, solar panels and wind turbines require rare Earth metals in their construction. Which is another finite and nonrenewable resource. And the supply of Rare Earths has already been severely depleted during the past couple of decades due to the rapid and voracious consumption of Rare Earths from the construction of the countless billions of electronic communication devices. Electronics--like computers and smartphones--require Rare Earths, and just from their construction alone most of Rare Earths have been depleted. And simply put, there isn't enough Rare Earths left to scale up solar panels and wind turbines to any significant enough level to phase out fossil fuels.

And there is also the problem that solar panels and wind turbines are intermittent in electricity generation. When the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing, you get no electricity from solar panels and wind turbines. And it is physically impossible to store massive quantities of electricity for times when the sunshine and wind isn't available. It is pretty obvious that industrial civilization needs a 24/7 supply of electricity, which is impossible for solar panels and wind turbines to provide. So even in places where significant amounts of electricity is generated by solar panels/wind turbines (like Germany), they need a back up source of electricity generation from an electricity source that can be run on a 24/7 basis like coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectric damns, etc. To compensate for the fact that solar and wind energy cannot generate electricity 24/7.

Also, solar panels and wind turbines require fossil fuels in every step of their life cycle. Like the fossil-fuel powered machines necessary for mining the metals and materials for their construction. The fossil-fuel powered factories used to manufacture and assemble them. The fossil-fuel powered machines to distribute them. The fossil fuel powered electricity to provide as back up electricity generation for when the sun/wind isn't available. The fossil fuels powered machines used to decommission/recycle solar panels and wind turbines, etc. In other words, solar panels and wind turbines cannot exist without fossil fuels, but the reverse is not true. Solar panels and wind turbines cannot replace the edifice built by fossil fuels.

Nothing can replace the edifice bulit by fossil fuels. So when fossil fuels are severely depleted and insufficient supplies of fossil fuels becomes a reality, the electricity grid will start to fall apart due to lack of fuel supplies. Not to mention, the electricity grid has been deregulated since 2005 in the USA ; meaning the lack of maintenence will further accelerate the speed of which the electricity grid goes out. Even when lack of maintenence of the grid isn't an issue, the lack of fossil fuels alone will mean the electricity will probably go out in most parts of the world due to peak oil, peak coal, peak natural gas, peak uranium, and the lack of other nonrenewable and finite resources. Simply put, without sufficient supplies of nonrenewable and finite fuel, you cannot generate enough electricity for industrial civilization.
History repeats itself. Just everytime with different characters and players.
DesuMaiden
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 881
Joined: Mon 06 Oct 2014, 16:00:31

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby DesuMaiden » Wed 17 Mar 2021, 09:42:30

Pops wrote:
DesuMaiden wrote:
Pops wrote:
DesuMaiden wrote:@AdamB Everything I present is based on fact. Like how 2005/2006 was when half of all of the world's recoverable oil has already been extracted.

Prove this.

what good would that do if you are likely a shill who would deny facts? I already suspect you are a shill because you present blatantly dishonest information. Keep on denying reality until everything falls apart. I know you are a shill because you deny well-documented facts to mislead people. The 1/2 way point literally happened in 2005, but what good would that do when shills like you will deny it? I will not respond to shills like you any further.

LOL, so as soon as you're called on your BS you give up without argument and resort to ad homs?
Pretty weak.

I was one of the first members and the first moderator so if I'm a shill then so is the whole site.
Look at the sidebar, click where it says "What is PO?"
I wrote that primer 17 years ago, I drew those pretty, smooth curves. Basically I made the same mistake you are but did it a decade before you showed up.

Look at this chart of US production, does it look like bell to you?

Image

Hubbert said:
The production rate will be zero when the reference time is zero, and the rate will again be zero when the resource is exhausted; that is to say, in the production of any resource of fixed magnitude, the production rate must begin at zero, and then after passing through one or several maxima, it must decline again to zero.

The only a priori information concerning the magnitude of the ultimate cumulative production of which we may be certain is tha tit will be less than, or at most equal to, the quantity of the resource initially present.


So, the curve will begin and end with zero, have one or more peaks and be just as high but no higher that the resource allows.

Then like everyone he made a guess at the ultimate resource, (actually used other's guess but whatever) and he came up with the cool linearization too. But they are all guesses.

He also said:
However, secondary recovery techniques are gradually being improved so that ultimately a somewhat larger but still unknown fraction of the oil underground should be extracted than is now the case. Because of the slowness of the secondary recovery process, however, it appears unlikely that any improvement that can be made within the next 10 or 15 years can have any significant effect upon the date of culmination.

I don't know if fracking is a "secondary technique" since it is employed initially but regardless, it has not only wrecked the curve because it was not slow in the least and it but increased the ultimate as well.

So, you could point to lots of different pieces of evidence, conventional plateau, fracking not expanding to other countries, low/no discoveries, majors going green, blah, blah, but you can't say oil production peaked at the "halfway point" in 2005 and be taken seriously. Pretty obvious to any observer it didn't.

Image

You didn't do anything to refute the undeniable scientific fact that half of all recoverable global oil reserves was depleted by 2005. And btw, the shale oil boom for the usa is only temporarily, and it will soon peak and rapidly decline. And the temporarily shale oil boom is one of the reasons why we managed to delay the peak of world oil production from 2005/2006 to 2018. But the shale oil boom didn't magically increase the oil reserves so that the half way point is now at 2018. It was literally at 2005 when half of all of recoverable oil was depleted. The half way point was not at 2018. It was at 2005.

And the shale oil boom didn't change the fact that the usa still had to import about half of all of its oil consumption. lol at people claiming the shale oil boom made the usa a net oil exporter. The Usa has been a net oil importer since the late 1960s, which was why the Arab Oil Embargos of the 1970s caused oil shortages in the USA. And nothing will change the fact that the usa will always remain a net oil importer.

oh btw 2018 was when global oil production reached an all-time peak. And the 6 to 7% decline rate/year will become inevitable in the near future
History repeats itself. Just everytime with different characters and players.
DesuMaiden
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 881
Joined: Mon 06 Oct 2014, 16:00:31

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby aadbrd » Wed 17 Mar 2021, 10:06:30

I admit that I am bemused to see someone as full of hellfire and brimstone as DesuMaiden in the sense that it's a throwback to times of yore when these issues seemed so much more urgent. That being said there is very little new being said. It's mostly a regurgitation of what sounds like outdated received wisdom. There are those here who think fracking is a mirage and that we will resume classic peak oil doom in short order. However, this always seems to boil down to a speculative boast. This is why DesuMaiden comes across so combative. It's less about trying to tease out the truth and more about trying to earn bragging rights for the correct short-term prediction. And just as Afghanistan is the graveyard for empires, the archive here is the graveyard of predictions. One need only read back to see this. Anyone studying these issues should by now carry with them a healthy dose of humility and be constantly incorporating new knowledge even if it threatens their established narrative (optimistic or pessimistic). But again, people interact on the internet for different reasons and far more are looking for validation than learning how the complex system of the world is really working.
User avatar
aadbrd
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 458
Joined: Sat 26 Dec 2020, 16:09:06

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby Pops » Wed 17 Mar 2021, 10:24:38

DesuMaiden wrote:You didn't do anything to refute the undeniable scientific fact that half of all recoverable global oil reserves was depleted by 2005.

I'm denying it, the chart I posted denies it.

Now, you prove it.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19226
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby AdamB » Wed 17 Mar 2021, 13:43:33

DesuMaiden wrote:
AdamB wrote:
OutcastPhilosopher wrote:"It may not be profitable to slow decline...simply put, more money can be made--more quickly--by accelerating decline, bankrupting the country, starving people, and selling off assets than by investing it in rebuilding under a new economic paradigm or by trying to soften the crash"

The above quote was from Michael Ruppert's book, Confronting Collapse. Let that sink in for you. I suspected this ,for many years, to be true.


Conspiracy nutter was bad enough, now folks who committed themselves to Bellevue is your source for information? A ex-cop who used a convicted child predator as a source on information for 9/11, that is where you find gems of info?

Ok I tried to reason with you, but now I realized that is futile because you clearly deny well-established scientific facts.


Ruppert being a psyche ward resident who used a child molester as a source for his 9/11 conspiracy angle is a fact, albeit not scientific.

DesuMaiden wrote:And no reliable source indicates that there is 12 trillion barrels of oil.


Nansen Saleri was the head of oil development for Saudi Arabia. Are you saying that someone in such a position isn't familiar with how much in-place oil has been found to date? And I only used this reference to show that you are deluded if you think that there are only a couple trillion barrels of recoverable oil. You have a better source than the USGS as to what is, or is not, recoverable?

DesuMaiden wrote:You repeatedly deny peak oil experts, like Richard Heinberg and Colin Campbell.....,


I have used Colin Campbell's own claims, and referenced where they came from. Heinberg wasn't capable of finishing college, in an interview he mentioned that smoking dope was far more interesting, and he is acknowledged as a decent amateur violin player. Where in that resume do you see any technical capabilities, let alone a published body of scientific work? Perhaps you refer to his books on the peak oil? You know, the same one that didn't happen when he was claiming it was about to?

DesuMaiden wrote: You deny these facts, despite all of the evidence I presented, which indicates you are either misinformed or trying to mislead people. Hopefully, the former is correct because I hope you aren't a disinfo agent.


Your CLAIMS are neither facts, nor presumed to be true just because you said them. So how do you plan on rectifying your misinformation and lack of references designed to mislead people?

DesuMaiden wrote:Michael Ruppert and many other doomers were 100% correct about how peak oil (and other civilizational and environmental problems) will inevitably lead to the collapse of industrial civilization.


Except it didn't happen when their claimed peak oil did. But I'll give you that psyche ward residents like Ruppert certainly were doomers.

Now, about that evidence you don't have, and the history that didn't happen as psyche ward residents and amateur violin players have claimed, do you have any proving history wrong, and them right, or not?
StarvingPuutyTat says: I'm so confident in my TOTAL COLLAPSE is IMMINENT prediction that I stake my entire reputation on it. It will happen this year. - Aug 3-2020

Mustang19 says: Mods, I am just here to troll the trolls. I mean no harm.
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 6452
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby AdamB » Wed 17 Mar 2021, 13:48:29

DesuMaiden wrote:Well everything you mentioned was due to good intentions, so I applaud you for that. But I don't think nuclear fission and renewables can make up for fossil fuel depletion for several reasons.


Hubbert said both could make up for it. Nuclear in his original paper, and the other 2 decades later when he was surprised by the effectiveness of solar.

Who are you to claim he is wrong? You think Ruppert is a source of information, seriously, other than a child who would ever make that mistake at this point in time?
StarvingPuutyTat says: I'm so confident in my TOTAL COLLAPSE is IMMINENT prediction that I stake my entire reputation on it. It will happen this year. - Aug 3-2020

Mustang19 says: Mods, I am just here to troll the trolls. I mean no harm.
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 6452
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby AdamB » Wed 17 Mar 2021, 13:58:29

DesuMaiden wrote:Image
You didn't do anything to refute the undeniable scientific fact that half of all recoverable global oil reserves was depleted by 2005.


It isn't true. Why would he refute it? I asked before and you ignored me, where is your source for this number? I know it didn't come from the best field level database available commercially, so...where did you get this claim (let alone think it is undeniable or scientific)?

DesuMaiden wrote: And the shale oil boom didn't change the fact that the usa still had to import about half of all of its oil consumption.


The US began exporting more than it imports back in 2019.

You don't know anything, do you? Recycling 15 year old peak oil dogma is nothing but a display of ignorance of what has happened since. Be smarter. Learn stuff. Stop being a damn parrot.
StarvingPuutyTat says: I'm so confident in my TOTAL COLLAPSE is IMMINENT prediction that I stake my entire reputation on it. It will happen this year. - Aug 3-2020

Mustang19 says: Mods, I am just here to troll the trolls. I mean no harm.
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 6452
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby DesuMaiden » Wed 17 Mar 2021, 16:45:40

@AdamB I am 100% certain you are a shill. I am not going to debate with you anymore because you keep on lying to hide and deny the facts that I present. Btw, that article you showed me is more disinformation. It only shows that the usa exports more oil than it used to, but it doesn't refute the fact that usa is still a net importer of oil. The Usa still imports more petroleum than it exports, because the usa still uses more oil than it can produce. nice try shill. Your disinformation doesn't work on me because I can see through your lies.
History repeats itself. Just everytime with different characters and players.
DesuMaiden
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 881
Joined: Mon 06 Oct 2014, 16:00:31

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests