[agramante]

Ah, I see. Thank you. Still learning ins & outs of this site.

[ROCKMAN]

Pstarr - Not mellowed out…sleeping. LOL. Was up at 2 AM messing with a new well.

The POD isn’t anything new. We talk about it all the time. It’s everything: reserves, production rates, geology, tech, politics local and global, refining, pipeline permits, alternative energy development, military adventures, internal oil consumption by the exporters, etc. etc. Essentially all those factors that determine the quality of life with respect to energy for everyone on the planet. A lot more than some date the world may or may not have reached PO.

I specifically toss out the POD to get away from a myopic focus on the PO date. It would be great if life were that simple. But it ain’t.

[ennui2]

2008 was the year that oil production could not meet oil demand and the economy was forced to contract.

Typical peaker narrative that ignores the credit crisis.

[ralfy]

2008 was the year that oil production could not meet oil demand and the economy was forced to contract.

Typical peaker narrative that ignores the credit crisis.

Don't forget conventional production barely rising even with a tripling of prices.

[dolanbaker]

2008 was the year that oil production could not meet oil demand and the economy was forced to contract.

Typical peaker narrative that ignores the credit crisis.

Don't forget conventional production barely rising even with a tripling of prices.

It's a common mistake to look at only one or two factors in the cause of the 2008 crisis, another key driver was the under-performing "baby boomer" pensions. The pension funds got reckless in their desperation to grow the money, that's another reason for the risky lending and the bust, high oil prices just tipped it over the edge.

[ROCKMAN]

donlan - Exactly. Again the reason for my silly little POD. When the discussion boils down to X caused this to happen or Y was really more important than little can be fully explained. And thus the endless debates. As you point out we are dealing with a complex system with many variables and feedback loops. Trying to resolve the situation by looking at just one or two factors either represent a profound lack of understanding of the dynamics or just an effort to follow some personal agenda IMHO.

[agramante]

To be fair, Rock, focusing on one element of the crisis can also be simply a means of following a line of inquiry into said complex system. As folks like us here on this board are generally aware, too many economists (both those we admire and those we don't) tend not to consider energy prices when they're discussing macroeconomics. That seems to be a bias on their part due more to laziness than ideology. For my part, not being an economist, I've been focusing and learning more about the role of energy in our economy than other things. In short, it is possible to study minutely some of the trees, and still not forget that you're in a forest.

[ROCKMAN]

a - that's valid. A system can only be understood by analyzing the individual components. You obviously understand that. And like most here you know each component doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's that very complex interaction of all the components that we strive to understand. Which is why an absolute focus on one or two components won't get you there. At the least it clouds the picture. At worse it distorts the entire picture.

[JV153]

2008 was the year that oil production could not meet oil demand and the economy was forced to contract.

Typical peaker narrative that ignores the credit crisis.

Don't forget conventional production barely rising even with a tripling of prices.

10 times - 10.40 in 1999 and 100+ in 2013. Dated Brent, spot price (not inflation
adjusted).

[ralfy]

Sorry, I was referring to 2004-2005, from around $30 to a hundred.

[Revi]

When fracking can't cover up the decline we'll notice peak oil again. I give it about 3 years, but it might be 5.

[John_A]

When fracking can't cover up the decline we'll notice peak oil again. I give it about 3 years, but it might be 5.

How many of those members of your peak oil group are still sticking it out there revi? Here we are, 5 years later, crude prices lower than the price spike of 2008, US oil production increasing when it was expected to decrease, have any of the old gang from the CNN piece abandoned their frugal ways and gone out and collected new vehicles and whatnot? Didn't you put together a thread once whereby you predicted that folks are on their last automobiles, what with how little crude might be left?

And fracking didn't cover up decline, it blew it away with such ferocity that the US is growing production faster than at any time in its history, that blurb coming from the Administrator of the EIA no less.

[Pops]

"Blew it away!"

snort

[John_A]

"Blew it away!"

snort

Rather than debate why Tufte would have a field day with inappropriate scales on a 2 dimensional plot to hide the obvious, I will just defer to the way the lead energy information specialist in the United States says it.

Imagine that.....all the way back to the Drake well.....in a country 40 years into a supposedly TERMINAL post peak decline.

EIA Administrator Adam Sieminski explained in a conference call to reporters on Tuesday, “That is the largest single-year growth in U.S. production all the way back to the drake oil well in Titusville, Pennsylvania in 1859.”

http://www.eagleenergycore.com/oil-prod ... s-history/

[Strummer]

Rather than debate why Tufte would have a field day with inappropriate scales on a 2 dimensional plot to hide the obvious

There's nothing inappropriate about the scale of that chart. Every single one of those barrels gets bought and consumed, therefore it is fully relevant to get the whole picture. But this version posted in the other thread is better:

[Quinny]

Nice to see graphs with correct scales

[Gordianus]

John_A. I agree with Strummer - that chart is perfectly reasonable and well presented. Like all good charts, it tells a clear story. There is a lot of data in it.

I am also quite sure that any expert in data visualisation would have no problem with the chart (but I am not familiar with Tufte's opinions).

In response, you have offered a single, imprecise, data point: "the largest single-year growth in U.S. production". Apparently you think this refutes the position presented by Pops and strummer.

Your argument is not persuasive in the slightest. Perhaps you just don't like the story that the chart tells!

[John_A]

Rather than debate why Tufte would have a field day with inappropriate scales on a 2 dimensional plot to hide the obvious

There's nothing inappropriate about the scale of that chart.

Tell it to Tufte. After he finishes telling you why it is designed to disguise the facts in question, you can come back and explain it to the rest of the class.

[John_A]

John_A. I agree with Strummer - that chart is perfectly reasonable and well presented. Like all good charts, it tells a clear story. There is a lot of data in it.

Sure there is lots of data in it. And it hides the story. So sure...if the goal is to avoid talking about post-peak areas increasing production faster in a year than at any time in its history, when they are supposed to be 40 years into a TERMINAL decline, its perfect.

In response, you have offered a single, imprecise, data point: "the largest single-year growth in U.S. production". Apparently you think this refutes the position presented by Pops and strummer.

I offered a single quote from the most informed energy official within the United States government with access to all the information his $100 million/year statistical and analytic collection team can give him.

I present it as a statement of fact, refuting nothing. Certainly neither Pops nor strummer are in a position to even dispute this particular fact, but what they can do is try and come up with a visual representation to minimize the effect this particular fact might have on those who are interested in this issue in light of what peak oil is SUPPOSED to be:

Peak oil, according to M. King Hubbert's Hubbert peak theory, is the point in time when the maximum rate of petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production is expected to enter terminal decline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

Highlighted for those who would rather not discuss the obvious.

Your argument is not persuasive in the slightest. Perhaps you just don't like the story that the chart tells!

The FACT I referenced is irrefutable by anyone on this forum, or any other. Unless you have to have Fatih Birol around to discuss it on a professional level at least equivalent to Adam's?

[Strummer]

Tell it to Tufte. After he finishes telling you why it is designed to disguise the facts in question, you can come back and explain it to the rest of the class.

It's designed to show the true proportions of the "shale bonanza". Which is necessary to show if we want to confirm that the shale bonanza "blew away" anything. It would be even better to have that chart going back to the 1940s to include the 1970s peak, but I guess you would like it even less then