[shortonsense]

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.

ALLIES TO THE END!!!! AGREED!

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...

Well, considering how we are now friends, I'm just not sure. When we've peaked before, preceeded and followed by the hysterical whinings of the likes of Carter say, such precedent might lead one to believe that this incessant hand wringing is normal.

While I employ hyperbol for a reason, I can completely buy into the concept that the transition, begun, I might argue, during those very Carter years when it first became apparent what dependency on others for energy actually MEANS, can be disturbing to some.

Carters ideas, while geologically misguided, generally ignorant and certainly politically spineless, have applicability to the situation which may actually be at hand now...or 2005 anyway when peak oil happened and all we got in exchange was more happy motoring.

It IS a good idea to not be dependent. It IS a good idea to protect/ensure/make nice with those who supply an important commodity to the world. It IS a good idea to use less, and if we do use, use more of what WE have rather than what someone else has.

Americans, being stubborn, have to be slapped in the face to change their behavior, and while $4/gal certainly showed the price breakpoint for most Americans, no politician had the cajones to peg the price there with a floor price / tariff for imported crude to both support local production, and to make sure we didn't fall back into old habits. Which, based on truck and SUV sales of late, it sure looks like we have.

[shortonsense]

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.

I don't think the disclaimer for idiots on his website says "imminent", but I get your point. Uberdoomers...I'll have to remember that one, these are the "enthusiasts" of the end of world scenario in any form or fashion as long as its TOMORROW?

[AirlinePilot]

Well, considering how we are now friends, I'm just not sure. When we've peaked before, preceeded and followed by the hysterical whinings of the likes of Carter say, such precedent might lead one to believe that this incessant hand wringing is normal.

I'm going to call you out on this every time you state it for clarity and to call into question your credibility. It's disingenuous to make such a claim and indicative of a complete misunderstanding of what PO is about.

You need to acknowledge that there will be one and only one peak to world oil production. It may have happened already. General consensus here and elsewhere is that the jury is still out but it is becoming clearer with time that last year may have been "it".

Most of us see this claim of yours as nonsensical and combative. Thats not how you support an argument or an intellectual way to stimulate debate. I'd suggest different tactics if you want a voice here which anyone bothers to listen to.

[newman1979]

Short's a troll. Probably a Jewish oil trader, based on his Jimmy Carter comments. who made a little money selling oil short in August 08 when he started his postings that exceed any reasonable limits. His attacks become personal and abusive in no time at all. He shows the typical arrogance of an uneducated writer. In an attack on one of my postings, he stated that Mexico was going to new heights in oil production. No facts were given except well known antecedents that at one time Mexico was the number two producer in the world (circa 1920). Well he should read the Cantarell thread, he might learn something, but as I beleive shorts to be a troll I don't count on it.

[thuja]

Short's a troll. Probably a Jewish oil trader, based on his Jimmy Carter comments. who made a little money selling oil short in August 08 when he started his postings that exceed any reasonable limits. His attacks become personal and abusive in no time at all. He shows the typical arrogance of an uneducated writer. In an attack on one of my postings, he stated that Mexico was going to new heights in oil production. No facts were given except well known antecedents that at one time Mexico was the number two producer in the world (circa 1920). Well he should read the Cantarell thread, he might learn something, but as I beleive shorts to be a troll I don't count on it.

While I don't find him a troll, I find him to be a very very poor debater. If I want a contrarian viewpoint I'd much rather read JohnDenver's posts- or even OilFinder2's- at least they back up their viewpoints in a reasonable manner even if I disagree.

SOS- you would gain much more traction if you would concede obvious points such as - world oil production has peaked or soon will be peaking. Even the main thinktanks acknowledge this. Then concede that this is likely to have a dramatic impact. You can go ahead and believe that we can transition, even smoothly transition...although you'll find a lot of argument there.

But to tilt at windmills by suggesting that this is a non-issue- it does move you towards seeming either trollish or wholly ignorant- and honestly I don't believe you are ignorant.

[shortonsense]

Well, considering how we are now friends, I'm just not sure. When we've peaked before, preceeded and followed by the hysterical whinings of the likes of Carter say, such precedent might lead one to believe that this incessant hand wringing is normal.

I'm going to call you out on this every time you state it for clarity and to call into question your credibility. It's disingenuous to make such a claim and indicative of a complete misunderstanding of what PO is about.

No it isn't. It recognizes the historical facts of multiple peaks, in some areas nearly 80 years apart, it recognizes peaks in natural gas on a scale the size of the entire US being reversed in 40 years, it recognizes global oil production peaking in 1980 and for nearly a decade, anyone who wished to could say, with a straight face, that "yup...when that thar url peaked back in 80, things was tough".

Hubbert did not write a paper on "The Multiple and Decades Apart Peaks of Fossil Fuel Production", so while YOU might consider multiple peaks misleading, don't blame ME for noticing them.

You need to acknowledge that there will be one and only one peak to world oil production. It may have happened already. General consensus here and elsewhere is that the jury is still out but it is becoming clearer with time that last year may have been "it".

I absolutely agree that when all is said and done, there will have only been one "true" peak rate of production. The question is, how many of all the OTHER ones will show up first, allowing non stop hand wringing on the topic by UberDoomers for possibly decades to come?

Most of us see this claim of yours as nonsensical and combative. Thats not how you support an argument or an intellectual way to stimulate debate. I'd suggest different tactics if you want a voice here which anyone bothers to listen to.

Call me crazy, but the ones getting short shrift in the idea department as of late are the UberDoomers who proclaimed the end of the world when peak arrived, and now that we're 4 years into a post peak world, things aren't quite working out as planned. Hardly puts ME in the "gee is HE stupid" department.

[shortonsense]

Well he should read the Cantarell thread, he might learn something, but as I beleive shorts to be a troll I don't count on it.

Mexican oil production has peaked about 3 times since Cantarell was discovered. Do you have an estimate on how many more times this might happen, or do you estimate that this one is, indeed, "the big one"?

[vision-master]

Well he should read the Cantarell thread, he might learn something, but as I beleive shorts to be a troll I don't count on it.

Mexican oil production has peaked about 3 times since Cantarell was discovered. Do you have an estimate on how many more times this might happen, or do you estimate that this one is, indeed, "the big one"?

Look's like the 'peaking' is over short.

[shortonsense]

SOS- you would gain much more traction if you would concede obvious points such as - world oil production has peaked or soon will be peaking.

Done deal. Thank you most wise ally to the lost and forlorn.

Even the main thinktanks acknowledge this. Then concede that this is likely to have a dramatic impact.

Can do. How dramatic is dramatic enough do you think? Can I calculate, for example, the real price difference in gasoline between, say, September 2005 and almost September 2009 and show how awe inspiring peak oil has effected prices? Or do I need something even MORE dramatic, like calculating the number of Saudi Arabia's which must have been discovered since 2005 to have allowed a plateau to continue for nearly 4 years, and then try and speculate on how well these obviously required finds ( which even Oil hasn't quantified in his discovery thread ) have been concealed by the MSM?

You can go ahead and believe that we can transition, even smoothly transition...although you'll find a lot of argument there.

4 years of it slowly happening now isn't enough? Well....how about if I throw in a "slightly lower of standard of living" qualifier to make up for some of the cost to a more electrical transport and PV/wind based electrical generation concept? How do you think that would go over?

But to tilt at windmills by suggesting that this is a non-issue- it does move you towards seeming either trollish or wholly ignorant- and honestly I don't believe you are ignorant.

Okay, got it. Stay away from non-issue, try and lean a little towards dramatic. Lets see what I can do with that.

[shortonsense]

Look's like the 'peaking' is over short.

WOW! Mexico is peaking....AGAIN!!!

Imagine that...so how many more peaks do you think the ol' gal has in her Vision?

[vision-master]

Look's like the 'peaking' is over short.

WOW! Mexico is peaking....AGAIN!!!

Imagine that...so how many more peaks do you think the ol' gal has in her Vision?

Look at the solid blue area moron.

[Grautr]

Call me crazy, but the ones getting short shrift in the idea department as of late are the UberDoomers who proclaimed the end of the world when peak arrived, and now that we're 4 years into a post peak world, things aren't quite working out as planned. Hardly puts ME in the "gee is HE stupid" department.

Hi Crazy,
yes the peak was 4 years ago but because we are sitting on top of a plateau and not a true peak there is the possibilty, however slim, that we might still top 2005.
That we are sitting on a production plateau is also the reason why the world hasnt ended although it has created the worst economic problems in 60 odd years. Once we start to see real declines of 5% or more per year then we will see real problems.

Look at Mexico and Britain, with their oil fields in steep decline, and the economic and social mess they are in.

[mcgowanjm]

Hi Crazy,

From us Hippies who've been right since Reagan.

And we have called entry into the Last Depression since May 2005.

Starting with AR lumber mills shut down Summer 05.

You're missing EROEI oil. Which has been rising (or falling) ever since May 05.

"you can’t have no cash flow from properties and hold them off indefinitely. That is how banks imploded in the first place! The cash flow ran out. People stopped paying."

[shortonsense]

Look at the solid blue area moron.

I saw it. It also shows one of the prior peaks.

Are you trying to say that TPTB at TOD studied the geology of Mexico and have decided by the only real means that matters that there isn't any chance of ANOTHER Mexican peak ( my count stands at 3 in 30 years, I'm open to revising that number if you'd like ).

Or is this just another example of fiting only oil production and pretending that what has happened multiple times in the past ( cycles of development, changes in demand, discovery of new geology or new ways of producing a particular field or area, all cuasing the reversal of decline and new peaks ) can't ever happen AGAIN?

[shortonsense]

So could we see an upside down W on a world level? Possibly and should not be discounted...but in my mind very doubtful.

Its already happened at the world level just as you've described, 1980 being the year where the slope changed on the increase in production. We all know why of course, hindsight being 20/20, it obviously wasn't THE peak. But people of that era certainly were worried about it, Jimmy being the most vocal and easilyt visible example.

The second leg of the W just kept going up and up...enough to fool Colin in 1990 anyway, he appeared to assume that once oil production regained its 1980 height, it would pretty much be over.

Only it wasn't of course, it just kept going to the 2005-2009 plateau. I'm pretty happy with the 2005-2009 plateau myself, it strikes me that a balance between green fears, capital investment, slow rampup of unconventionals based on need, the slow electrification of transport and its generation from alternate non fossil fuels sources like wind, widespread availability of massive amounts of natural gas from multiple sources and their use in their natural state or as feedstock for GTL's, running out of fossil fuels spanning the next century sure won't be the primary issue affecting mankinds standard of living.

Seems reasonable anyway, once you peel away the UberDoomer nonsense and try and rough out the size of the issue, and what the real bottlenecks are.

[shortonsense]

Evolution was a science before it was taught in school. As was physics. Short you don't need a degree to understand truth.

Please stop inserting teaching school nonsense and answer the question. Please reference a teaching curriculum of at least the undergraduate level in "depletion science". Any reference where I can check the curriculum will do. And I'll skip the nonsense about your confusion of what "truth" is, and science.

As for your insult. Let's compare science degrees. Okay? Where did you say yours is from?

I have 3. None of them are from a teaching college. In the last 10 years of my career, pre retirement, no project I worked on, headed up, investigated or was required to fix, had a budget of less than 500 million dollars. Admittedly, none of them had much to do with biology.

Hubbert's analysis is a joke. Care to critique it?

Sure. It almost worked once. Science requires more from a model than a random chance of occurrence. You did take a statistics class while gaining your expert level status in "science" didn't you, so I don't have to explain basic probability theory to you?

Many here at PO.com and the Oildrum were predicted Mexico's petroleum demise when the Mexican government, CERA, EIA, and the petroleum and mainstream press were predicting production increases year after year. The only right analysis has been here.

TOD also said that peak oil was 2008....did you happen to notice the title of this thread? We be so smart we can barely get the peak into half a decade span in time, AFTER the fact?

I can provide more examples once you wiki around to try and understand the relatively obvious point I'm trying to make.

If this an invitation for me to do your homework, then I do not accept it?

Of course you wouldn't. Some of them aren't in Wiki because its written by peakers who are so ridiculous that they've got Kunstler, Pfeiffer and Savinar listed as sources of information other than the punchline of a bad joke.

[AirlinePilot]

Maybe. The global 6% decline in production from 1980 to 1981 certainly caused its share of problems....short lived of course

There is a marked difference from a one year decline and an accelerating decline which encompasses the entire future of world oil production. Even the tiny fact that you mentioned it this way shows your inability to grasp the concept that at some point, a finite amount of oil will cease to allow us to grow the extraction of it. Whether it is right now, 2005, or 2011, it is a pressing economic and social issue of such a magnitude as to warrant immediate action on a large scale globally. Your failure to understand this, and your troll like claims of almost infinite supply(based on WHAT?), belie a real misunderstanding of what PO is and why some of us think the status quo for oil production specifically is on the cusp of significant change.

I'd suggest once again you provide some sort of proof that it will be possible for production to gow much above where it was last year. Either that or continue to lose any credibility which you believe you still have by making ridiculous claims in these threads.

Multiple Peaks!!! HA!

[AirlinePilot]

I'm pretty happy with the 2005-2009 plateau myself, it strikes me that a balance between green fears, capital investment, slow rampup of unconventionals based on need, the slow electrification of transport and its generation from alternate non fossil fuels sources like wind, widespread availability of massive amounts of natural gas from multiple sources and their use in their natural state or as feedstock for GTL's, running out of fossil fuels spanning the next century sure won't be the primary issue affecting mankinds standard of living.

Well in all truth here, other than your claims, which have not been backed up by any credible source or entity, your failing completely at convincing anyone that this will actually be the case.

Far from completely disaggreeing with you though, I do see some substitution happening, but at a rate which makes almost no difference at all to where we are and where we will need to be due to population growth alone within the next ten years. Once again we have come across a troll at PO.com who has no grasp of the magnitude of the problem and the required lead times to effect reasonable change without causing serious disruptions of economies and populations.

For those who want a reasonable view of what it takes and the time frames involved, I'd suggest a thorough reading and UNDERSTANDING of the Hirsch Report.

http://www.mnforsustain.org/oil_peaking ... hirsch.htm

[TheDude]

Mexican oil production has peaked about 3 times since Cantarell was discovered.

Don't usually pay any attention to anything you post, but became curious why Mexico was being discussed here. Mexican production was curtailed about 10% in the early 80s - when everyone in the world cut back. It increased from '86 onward; when Cantarell's output slackened slightly in the late 90s this also cut into overall production - 4.46% - for one year. Since the peak in 2003 Mexican production has fallen 16.68%.

[thuja]

Mexican oil production has peaked about 3 times since Cantarell was discovered.

Don't usually pay any attention to anything you post, but became curious why Mexico was being discussed here. Mexican production was curtailed about 10% in the early 80s - when everyone in the world cut back. It increased from '86 onward; when Cantarell's output slackened slightly in the late 90s this also cut into overall production - 4.46% - for one year. Since the peak in 2003 Mexican production has fallen 16.68%.

Which shows that oil production curves don't have exact upside down U shapes for a multiplicity of reasons- slackening demand, oil field depletion, lack of investment, etc.

But really this is all semantics and fairly pointless to debate.

SOS all major thinktanks are on the same page that we are reaching a maximum global production level. Even the most conservative outfits now acknowledge the peak's imminence.

To try and rehash the issue by observing false previous predictions or false "peaks" is to obfuscate the issue.

It becomes...trollish. Move on...