[shortonsense]

The leptokurtic function of the oil production/humanpop
growth curve indicates that after passing asymptote fat tail risk
of a non linear dragon king event increases exponentially.

So is that supposed to mean anything beyond R. C. Duncan was probably right?

The first rule of peak oil is we are always right.
The second rule of peak oil is we are always right...until our predictions are in the past and wrong.
The third rule of peak oil is we are always right...until the 2nd rule becomes obvious to even us at which point in time we move the goalposts until we can pretend rule 1 is back in effect.

[RobertRapier]

2008 had oil at $147 and had every producer selling all they could produce. The result was and is that even with the price sky high and all economic theory on their side, the result was less than 2005.

Ron, I am guessing this is you? I just became aware of this, but can't resist.

As you know - and as was pointed out to you at TOD - it was after oil fell off the $147 cliff that production followed. When oil was at $147, oil production was at an all-time high, and the two all-time monthly records are both in 2008. Further, the 12 month period preceding the price plunge from $147/bbl was significantly higher than for 2005. I think you well know that had oil prices not plunged, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I also remember you telling me - when 2008 looked like the record - that it didn't matter. I also remember you saying that 2008 was the record. Remember when I quizzed you about the change of heart? But if it is moved back to 2005, then it suddenly matters?

What I also think you forget is what accompanied all of these 2005 peak proclamations. People were talking about incredibly high decline rates, and forecasting sharply lower oil production following the peak. That of course has not happened, but some people's memories get fuzzy when their predictions don't come true. So after those predictions didn't come true, some people began to embrace the plateau - which of course they had "known all along."

RR

[shortonsense]

What I also think you forget is what accompanied all of these 2005 peak proclamations. People were talking about incredibly high decline rates, and forecasting sharply lower oil production following the peak. That of course has not happened, but some people's memories get fuzzy when their predictions don't come true.
RR

Bingo

"Fuzzy" being the understatement of the year, but kudo's for someone else noticing the obvious.

[newman1979]

"Fuzzy" being the understatement of the year, but kudo's for someone else noticing the obvious.[/quote]

I don't think that "wild decline" have been relied upon by most observers. Seriously, a small decline puts pressure on a growing or flat demand as pricing is always at the margin. We saw that occur in 2008. At present, a recession has changed the demand/ supply situation.
As production of crude as reported by the EIA has slowed by about 2 million barrels a day in 09, small movements in world supply/demand can cause significant price movements. If world production does not exceed 2005, demand will at some near point exceed supply. If oil production falls more, competition for oil will heat up faster. We will always have some oil, the question is the price.
Mexico's crude oil production is falling pretty fast as is Norway, The UK and the North Sea according to EIA data. History shows that these fields slow slowly at first and then speed up. This has happened to the US in the1970-75 time period. History also shows that exports by producing countries fall faster than production declines.
The facts are the facts, we deal with them. The issue is how do we we plan for the future, and what should we do now to protect the future.

[gollum]

Nothing is certain with the economy in such uproar, but it seems likely 2005 to 2008 was a plateau, with real decline setting in the next few years to be aggravated by lack of investment during the present recession. I'm a major doomer but would love to be proven wrong as a future retirement consisting of trips to Vegas will be a lot More fun that tending the garden and the chickens

[shortonsense]

quote="sos"]"Fuzzy" being the understatement of the year, but kudo's for someone else noticing the obvious.

I don't think that "wild decline" have been relied upon by most observers.
[/quote]

That would depend on someone's version of wild. The US has been declining for decades around 1.5%/year. Mexico, during 2 prior peak oils, declined even less. Even with Canteral after its most recent peak its running about 3.5% year. So yes, people were assuming "wild" declines more often than not. Some still ARE.

Seriously, a small decline puts pressure on a growing or flat demand as pricing is always at the margin. We saw that occur in 2008. At present, a recession has changed the demand/ supply situation.

Previously, ZERO allowance was made for demand destruction, because gasoline consumption is so inelastic, doncha know. ZERO allowance was made for a recession actually changing the supply/demand picture enough to effect price.

We will always have some oil, the question is the price.

Peak oil has always been about only supply, the invention of it becoming a price argument is a relatively recent invention, more prevalent over the past decade, but in the resource depletion game going back more than a century related to oil, just a new concept. And certainly not the main component of peak oil.

Mexico's crude oil production is falling pretty fast as is Norway, The UK and the North Sea according to EIA data. History shows that these fields slow slowly at first and then speed up. This has happened to the US in the1970-75 time period. History also shows that exports by producing countries fall faster than production declines.

Maybe. Maybe not. This is all dependent on whether or not any area in particular is experiencing THE peak versus just another one in its history. Mexico has had 3 in the modern era. Its probably capable of having another. And if demand is falling faster than supply is declining, its still an oversupply situation, and price will also reflect it.

The facts are the facts, we deal with them. The issue is how do we we plan for the future, and what should we do now to protect the future.

Protect it from what? Proclaimations of Doom stretching back into the late 1800's which haven't been right yet, and certainly aren't playing out as predicted now 4 YEARS POST PEAK IF THE TITLE IS TO BE BELIEVED?

[gollum]

"Protect it from what? Proclaimations of Doom stretching back into the late 1800's which haven't been right yet, and certainly aren't playing out as predicted now 4 YEARS POST PEAK IF THE TITLE IS TO BE BELIEVED? "

I'd have to disagree, I see plenty of doom around to include 2 resource wars, massive financial turmoil, volatility in oil prices, political turmoil, the beginnings of social unrest. I would have to say that almost all of the predictions for post peak oil are here now at some level. The only thing I don't see are sky high oil prices but I don't think $70 a barrel is particularly cheap considering real world unemployment is reaching 20% in some areas and demand is down considerably.

[thuja]

Yeah SOS I'm afraid you must be living in a bit of bubble- the last few years have seen dramatic world events related to oil politics. The Iraq war, conflict in Nigeria and parts of Africa, power plays by Venezuela, Russia...massive food price spikes in large part due to astronomical oil prices...the list goes on and on.

The Wall Street Journal just did a great article that puts the blame for this recession in large part due to oil constraints and the run up in oil price.

Are you seriously saying nothing is happening here? This is why I don't really converse with you. There are good arguments to say that the peak is not here and that we are at a plateau.

But to dismiss the influence of the peak and decline of oil: I'm sorry- not even the main thinktanks do that (IEA, EIA). You're naysaying simply puts you in the kook category.

[gollum]

I have to add, there's no question at all about long term growth the only question is are we on a plateau or past peak. The other nagging question is are we as a society going to have an organised power down or are we gonna try to have BAU until the house of cards collapses?
Observing how TPTB are handling things so far I'm betting on a very bad collapse (probably a series of collapses) at some point, with the end game being similar to the fall of Rome or end of the bronze age. I take no pleasure in this and would love to be wrong, but I don't think I am.

[thuja]

One of the most dramatic changes this plateau has caused has been a permanent change in pricing structure.

Basically, we can be in a massive recession and have cheap oil. Or we can have strong economic growth with expensive oil.

But we can no longer have strong economic growth with cheap oil (a la 90's).

That...is...a... watershed.

[shortonsense]

One of the most dramatic changes this plateau has caused has been a permanent change in pricing structure.

That...is...a... watershed.

Same thing happened in 1973. That was a permanent change in pricing structure as well, as well as the end of cheap oil. According to Hirsch anyway....but I think he's good for this one, versus how badly he screwed the pooch on American natural gas supplies.

In the meantime, considering how awe inspiring and earth shattering THAT watershed was...I'd have to venture that this one has been a bit of a dud.

1973 was the end of innocence, and I don't really think a majority of Americans, many of whom have grown up in the new, post 73, "oil has always been pricey and that price in part is dictated by others" environment, can honestly say they are shocked anymore by a ramp up in prices. None who took at least a basic 5th grade level American history course at some time in their elementary school days anyway.

[mcgowanjm]

In the meantime, considering how awe inspiring and earth shattering THAT watershed was...I'd have to venture that this one has been a bit of a dud.

1973 was the end of innocence, and I don't really think a majority of Americans...

1973 was the wealthiest the Bottom 90% would ever be.

In the meantime, considering how awe inspiring and earth shattering THAT watershed was...I'd have to venture that this one has been a bit of a dud.

Only $23.7 trillion in US loans, guarantees and grants is stopping
the tsunami. And that's only interest for one year on $1.4 quadrillion in derivatives.

We have entered the Last Depression.

[thuja]

Oh and to others who still think that the recent oil shock was no big thing...here's that WSJ article:

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapit ... recession/

From the article:

"In a nutshell: Higher oil and gasoline prices whacked the U.S. auto industry, the effects of which cascaded through large swathes of the rest of the economy and helped curtail spending. Energy prices also pummeled consumers’ disposable income and confidence. To the extent that the housing meltdown did play a huge part in the recession, that too can be partially chalked up to higher oil prices: Cheap digs in the distant suburbs went underwater with $4 gasoline."

Doom? Maybe not the apocalypse- but many smart thinkers here don't expect that. They expect a cascading effect on the world economy due to oil resource constraints. IN essence this will lead to worse and worse recessions as shortages crimp industrial input.

So far since oil levels have plateaued we have seen world mega-recession number one. I'd say the smart thinkers here are batting 1000. And SOS? not making it to the major leagues yet.

[Pops]

Cheap digs in the distant suburbs went underwater with $4 gasoline."

The 2 or 3 highest foreclosure counties in the country are in the central valley of CA, 80-120 miles from the bay area. I did work for a developer who's best prospects were people that had bought a house a couple of years before a few dozen miles closer to San Fran.

[newman1979]

The Federal Debt is now $11,880,000,000 or $11.88 trillion. The $23.7 trillion in TARP exposure was undertaken by the FED, who continue to refuse to account for their actions or refuse to disclose their actions.
Congress refuses to use oversight to find the facts. While not all of the TARP bailouts will be worthless, some, no matter how lucky we are, will be. Whether it is 10% or 50% I haven't a clue. But with house prices continuing to sink and commercial real estate sinking, I would add $2 trillion to the effective Federal Debt now for planning purposes. If done, effective Federal Debt would exceed 100% of GDP now. We are adding to our Federal Debt at around $150 billion a month. The GAO expects $1 trillion a year deficits for the next 10 years. Who pray tell will invest in our debt and who will pay it back?
All of the foregoing has a lot to do with the price of oil and the value of the dollar.
Both political parties must take credit for this folly. Bush added $5.8 trillion in 8 years. And recession Keynesian theory has been used to justify the latest additions.
Everybody with an ounce of sense knows that the foregoing is unsustainable.

[shortonsense]

I
Only $23.7 trillion in US loans, guarantees and grants is stopping
the tsunami. And that's only interest for one year on $1.4 quadrillion in derivatives.

We have entered the Last Depression.

Well, thats one claim. There are certainly others. But what does Buffet know versus all us really smart and talented and underappreciated internet posters.

http://blog.taragana.com/n/buffett-fore ... ing-51339/

[shortonsense]

So far since oil levels have plateaued we have seen world mega-recession number one. I'd say the smart thinkers here are batting 1000. And SOS? not making it to the major leagues yet.

Go back and review the thread on who came closest to the actual price of crude at the end of 2008 and then say that. The easiest measure to understand, and oft predicted, and not a person in that thread could even be said to understand what was going to happen within a single years span.

Yeah, weeze all relly smarts cap'n.

[thuja]

So far since oil levels have plateaued we have seen world mega-recession number one. I'd say the smart thinkers here are batting 1000. And SOS? not making it to the major leagues yet.

Go back and review the thread on who came closest to the actual price of crude at the end of 2008 and then say that. The easiest measure to understand, and oft predicted, and not a person in that thread could even be said to understand what was going to happen within a single years span.

Yeah, weeze all relly smarts cap'n.

You want to gain some allies- make fun of the uberdoomers who think the world is going to crash and 90 % of humans will die soon after we peak. I make fun of them all the time.

But to say that the imminent (or just past) peaking and decline ofworld oil production won't make a significant difference? Wow- that is a level of intellectual dishonesty (or stupidity) that I find...unimpressive.

Again- we're batting 1000- take some batting practice...

[Pops]

So far since oil levels have plateaued we have seen world mega-recession number one. I'd say the smart thinkers here are batting 1000. And SOS? not making it to the major leagues yet.

Go back and review the thread on who came closest to the actual price of crude at the end of 2008 and then say that. The easiest measure to understand, and oft predicted, and not a person in that thread could even be said to understand what was going to happen within a single years span.

Yeah, weeze all relly smarts cap'n.

I looked but I can't find your guess there -

I don't think I have seen any guess you have made except that no one will get the flu and fewer are getting it, the economy is in fine shape and getting better, there is FF to last eons and if there isn't They'll think of something, and (I'm not sure but would guess) no one has died in Iraq & Afghanistan and less are dying all the time.

in fact I looked and your very first post was a smack at PO.com - not the theory of peak oil, just at the site.


The computer-game of Overnight Armageddon and Bash the Cornie is tiring and so is the game of Peakers are Fools. Its time for all that to come to an end and get back to discussing the situation like adults.

If your take is optimistic then please, argue that case and present what evidence you find, If you are pessimistic then argue likewise. But no matter which side of that argument you are on, if you can't have a conversation like a grown-up, you aren't welcome.

Carry on.

[thuja]

For example- John Denver- many here hate him. I think he is a wonderful member (on and off again) of this site. I may vociferously disagree with him but he at least presents a cogent argument. He broadens the argument as an optimist by describing in detail his view of how we could transition away from fossil fuels.

He does not deny the imminent peak of world oil production. He just thinks we can transition. Uberdoomers hate him for that. But his argument is a welcome counterpoint.