[AdamB]

They were right in a way that mattered, the growth was so feeble it didn't track population.

Really? Can you provide the quote and source of it? Because one predicted peak oil as accurately as you did oil prices, 30+ years ago, the other claimed peak oil happened before and after 2005, both times for 2005, and demonstrated that they don't know any more about resource economics than you do math, and the third thought that methane was poison gas and we needed to nuke the GOM to stop a well blowout.

So which brand of stupid do you think they were right about? The same brand as the halfwit who studied their work and deduced that peak oil was real, 15 years ago when it wasn't? Or does that make the quote I provided nothing more than a demonstration that the poster was just as ill-informed and unable to see into the future as they were? Of course, I doubt that Colin, Ken or Matt ever put 1/0 into their equations that the halfwit I referenced from way back.

[rangerone314]

The truth of the matter is that formulas, theory, geology, etc don't matter.
Human nature matters.

The people -- that have more accurate data than we do and have a much better idea as to how much reserves are left -- are not going to tell the truth, because that would put them at a disadvantage.

There will be so much lying and manipulation, that you won't know peak oil until you see it far behind in the rear view mirror.

[mustang19]

The truth of the matter is that formulas, theory, geology, etc don't matter.
Human nature matters.

The people -- that have more accurate data than we do and have a much better idea as to how much reserves are left -- are not going to tell the truth, because that would put them at a disadvantage.

There will be so much lying and manipulation, that you won't know peak oil until you see it far behind in the rear view mirror.

No, the hubbert curve is infallible for field level predictions.

[AdamB]

The truth of the matter is that formulas, theory, geology, etc don't matter.
Human nature matters.

Well, that one I've gotta give you. Two things matter in this world, physics, and human will (human nature). Physics sets the rules of the game, and then we scurry around pretending we are important (speciesism runs amuck!) and economics quantifies what our human nature does.

But physics, because we can't get around those particular rules.

The people -- that have more accurate data than we do and have a much better idea as to how much reserves are left -- are not going to tell the truth, because that would put them at a disadvantage.

I've been telling the truth for going on 16 years now. Gets me banned for knowing in advance peak oil circa 2005 was a crock, and why, and it has been an ADVANTAGE in terms of my career and professional standing. So how would knowing the ins and outs of peak oils (past, present and future) be a disadvantage? It falls within the realm of the given, and physics, perfectly fine, can't be defined. Only the hysterical claims of it down through the decades are the problem, and that is a human nature problem, not a technical one.

There will be so much lying and manipulation, that you won't know peak oil until you see it far behind in the rear view mirror.

How many decades before we can be sure do you think? And because we CAN look at it in the past, we are obviously around looking back, so it could be caused by peak demand as likely as scarcity. MORE likely I would argue.

[AdamB]

No, the hubbert curve is infallible for field level predictions.

Really? Obviously I am surprised because you've been posting graphs of it not working at all. Here are two well known fields, can you demonstrate the infallibility of hubbert curves on them?

[mustang19]

No, the hubbert curve is infallible for field level predictions.

Really? Obviously I am surprised because you've been posting graphs of it not working at all. Here are two well known fields, can you demonstrate the infallibility of hubbert curves on them?

Seems like it follows the curve. The maximal production is 90% explained by the cumulative in a review of a wide variety of fields (table 6). The error is in discovery of new fields. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... .2012.0317

Curve-fitting is best applied to geologically homogeneous areas that have had a relatively unrestricted exploration history (e.g. without areas being closed to exploration for legal or political reasons). If this is not done, the mixing of different populations of fields or the opening up of new areas for exploration can lead to inconsistencies in the time series and undermine the basis for extrapolating historical trends

[AdamB]

No, the hubbert curve is infallible for field level predictions.

Really?

Seems like it follows the curve.

The game today was to see how quickly you would reverse an obvious idiot claim, and you managed to do it with your first response. I recommend learning stuff. Or at least checking a single field before saying something stupid.

Thank you for playing the "How Stupid Can Short Be Today" game.... Mustang.