[Nonsense]

Is there no one to stand against my argument that the complexities involved preclude reaching any meaningful conclusions?

I'm not sure what your punch line will be, but it seems a moot point.

Considering that the very foundations of western industrial societies are based on the exploitation of non-renewable
minerals and fuels, it will be extremely difficult to switch to an industrial and economic system based solely on renewable resources.--M.H. Huesemann

We cannot be prepared to cope and adapt to the coming changes given this foundation, cultural direction, and asset inertia.

We can't even envision how to do so.

It would be like trying to navigate a boat on dry land.

By his logic since you can't predict with any certainty that you'll get killed playing on the freeway, you might as well go for it.

Nonsense attempts to shift the burden of proof to peakers. He's saying that we don't know all the facts... so we can't prove that depletion is eminent.

Look at it this way nonsense, if peak is right now, then we should have begun some sort of transition 30 years ago... if peak is 25 years from now, then we should begin... now.

Nobody disputes that peak will happen... even CERA & the USGS predict a peak in oil production. So are you so selfish that as long as it's not happening on your watch you don't care?

Just because we can't predict specifically when peak happens does nothing to change the situation... only who will suffer from it... us, or a future generation.

Not really.

What I'm saying is that we don't have a way to know which generation will face this energy crisis, and without that knowledge, predictions about peak oil are almost meaningless in practical terms. We don't know exactly when, or what the downstream consequences of peak oil will be, because too many different factors influence how things will evolve.

Might be bad, & might turn out ok. It depends on what happens.

You guys may very well be discussing an event decades away; or one which will get "solved" by some unforeseen development in technology or society. There's just no way to know; it's all random guesswork.

So what do you call a theory that can't make any accurate predictions, & can't be verified until years or decades after the fact?

Failed.

[Aaron]

Is there no one to stand against my argument that the complexities involved preclude reaching any meaningful conclusions?

I'm not sure what your punch line will be, but it seems a moot point.

Considering that the very foundations of western industrial societies are based on the exploitation of non-renewable
minerals and fuels, it will be extremely difficult to switch to an industrial and economic system based solely on renewable resources.--M.H. Huesemann

We cannot be prepared to cope and adapt to the coming changes given this foundation, cultural direction, and asset inertia.

We can't even envision how to do so.

It would be like trying to navigate a boat on dry land.

By his logic since you can't predict with any certainty that you'll get killed playing on the freeway, you might as well go for it.

Nonsense attempts to shift the burden of proof to peakers. He's saying that we don't know all the facts... so we can't prove that depletion is eminent.

Look at it this way nonsense, if peak is right now, then we should have begun some sort of transition 30 years ago... if peak is 25 years from now, then we should begin... now.

Nobody disputes that peak will happen... even CERA & the USGS predict a peak in oil production. So are you so selfish that as long as it's not happening on your watch you don't care?

Just because we can't predict specifically when peak happens does nothing to change the situation... only who will suffer from it... us, or a future generation.

Not really.

What I'm saying is that we don't have a way to know which generation will face this energy crisis, and without that knowledge, predictions about peak oil are almost meaningless in practical terms. We don't know exactly when, or what the downstream consequences of peak oil will be, because too many different factors influence how things will evolve.

Might be bad, & might turn out ok. It depends on what happens.

You guys may very well be discussing an event decades away; or one which will get "solved" by some unforeseen development in technology or society. There's just no way to know; it's all random guesswork.

So what do you call a theory that can't make any accurate predictions, & can't be verified until years or decades after the fact?

Failed.

No

It's defined as unproven, not failed.

Peak Oil & similar resource depletion concepts are well accepted, mainstream ideas in geology today. All credible experts concur that all natural resources follow a production curve over their lifetime.

This curve always ends in depletion.

Not understanding the original endowment of world oil, & therefore it's eventual peak of production, in no way disproves the concept of peak oil. It simply means the better data we have, the more accurate our predictions become.

Some new development may well pop up which changes the equation, but logic suggests that we proceed as if that was not a possibility, as a hedge against a worse-case scenario.

If Tesla's frozen head invents room-temperature fusion... great... we dodged a bullet.

If not, perhaps we may want to consider the possibilities of living with oil depletion.

[MonteQuest]

So what do you call a theory that can't make any accurate predictions, & can't be verified until years or decades after the fact?

Prescience?

[Twilight]

Global peak is only a sum of what we have seen happen in dozens of countries already. Peak has already happened, many times, with stark implications for all policy areas in the affected countries. The global version is just adding up the curves, little more. There's not much guesswork anymore. The US-48 peak was understood before I was born. The American respone was what? Toy with buying a Corolla? The generation that confronts peak will not be in a position to do much. It's the preceding ones which could have materially affected the outcome. We can already see they failed. Those who will deal with the post-PO world got set up.

[MonteQuest]

If Tesla's frozen head invents room-temperature fusion... great... we dodged a bullet.

Yeah, then all we have to deal with is the overshoot and global warming bullets.

[PraiseDoom]

The generation that confronts peak will not be in a position to do much.

That be us!!! I don't consider how long I've known about peak and my preparations to be "not in a position to do much". I'd offer to share my MRE's and ammo, but that wouldn't reflect the coming reality of Doom where its every man for himself, now would it?

[Geko45]

What I'm saying is that we don't have a way to know which generation will face this energy crisis, and without that knowledge, predictions about peak oil are almost meaningless in practical terms. We don't know exactly when, or what the downstream consequences of peak oil will be, because too many different factors influence how things will evolve.

You keep saying there is no way to know what will happen and that it is all "random guesswork", but that is simply not true. It's very easy to extrapolate trends and arrive at a reasonable assessment of what will happen if those trends continue. In fact, it is really the defining characteristic of the human race that has allowed us to become so successful. We look at what's happening in the present, determine the likelihood of the various possible outcomes and then plan accordingly. We do it all the time at both the micro and macro levels. In fact, there are whole fields of study devoted to this type of analysis (e.g. economics, anthropology, etc) Your problem is that you obviously don't have any experience with applying critical thinking skills at this macro level so you incorrectly conclude that it’s not possible.

[threadbear]

Global peak is only a sum of what we have seen happen in dozens of countries already. Peak has already happened, many times, with stark implications for all policy areas in the affected countries. The global version is just adding up the curves, little more. There's not much guesswork anymore. The US-48 peak was understood before I was born. The American respone was what? Toy with buying a Corolla? The generation that confronts peak will not be in a position to do much. It's the preceding ones which could have materially affected the outcome. We can already see they failed. Those who will deal with the post-PO world got set up.

Agree. I always figured peak was within the next couple of decades, but that we would have to quit the oil burning habit much sooner due to climate change. The timing of the twin crises seems so incredibly Gaian-- and the synchronicity is so elegant, who could, or would want to argue the point.

Monte Quest, has always written with such heartfelt passion about the environmental impacts of carbon emissions , who could fail to be moved by his love of nature, and who would be imbecilic enough to argue purely from a human standpoint, the costs or benefits of a technological "fix".

[MonteQuest]

Monte Quest, has always written with such heartfelt passion about the environmental impacts of carbon emissions , who could fail to be moved by his love of nature, and who would be imbecilic enough to argue purely from a human standpoint, the costs or benefits of a technological "fix".

Thank you, threadbear for those remarks.

[PraiseDoom]

Monte Quest, has always written with such heartfelt passion about the environmental impacts of carbon emissions , who could fail to be moved by his love of nature, and who would be imbecilic enough to argue purely from a human standpoint, the costs or benefits of a technological "fix".

I thought we let him win arguments because he has 9000+ posts and the rest of us are actually getting ready for the coming dieoff rather than wasting our time pretending much of anything else matters?

[threadbear]

Monte Quest, has always written with such heartfelt passion about the environmental impacts of carbon emissions , who could fail to be moved by his love of nature, and who would be imbecilic enough to argue purely from a human standpoint, the costs or benefits of a technological "fix".

Thank you, threadbear for those remarks.

I don't care about charts and facts as much as things I can see with my own eyes. You have made the best case out there for the natural world, and how humans are trashing the planet. Everything else is just detail, as far as I'm concerned. If you think I have undermined your concern for the eco-system and our need to deal with wrenching change, I apologize for that. I in no way meant to do that, believe it or not.

[Homesteader]

Nonesense,

What do you conclude from the last few years world wide production plateau?

[MonteQuest]

If you think I have undermined your concern for the eco-system and our need to deal with wrenching change, I apologize for that. I in no way meant to do that, believe it or not.

I don't. Never have.

[PraiseDoom]

Nonesense,

What do you conclude from the last few years world wide production plateau?

That its bad and getting worse? Duncans Gorge is lined up for this summer, I say its ABOUT TIME!!!

[Rogozhin]

Or is the question itself sacrosanct?

This is only a valid question if your definition of 'sacrosanct' is the synonym of irrationality.

Rogo

[Mircea]

Is there no one to stand against my argument that the complexities involved preclude reaching any meaningful conclusions?

Or is the question itself sacrosanct?

I command you!

By your command.

Peak Oils are a non-event and beause they are, you don't need to know the precise day, hour, minute and second when oils will peak.

The date oils peak is analogous to the dates the various peace treaties were signed ending WWII.

Here's a trick question: Where the peace treaties signed before WWII started, or after it ended?

Hello? After it ended. Nobody got drafted because the treaty was signed. Nobody got killed or maimed or injured or their personal property, homes and businesses destroyed because the treaty was signed. People didn’t endure hardships, high prices for commodities, scarcity of commodities, or rationing of food and non-food items because the treaty was signed. All of that happened in the period before the treaty was signed.

So it is with Peak Oils. The action will occur long before the oils actually peak.

Who's the smart investor, the one who buys stock in railroads and river transportation companies now, or the one who waits until after oils peak?

If your business is not a publicly traded corporation, you can run indefinitely on a 0% profit margin, but if it's a publicly traded corporation, a loss of profits means a loss of shareholders, making your situation worse.

If you're incurring losses due to rising transportation costs because of increasing oil prices, you might be able to raise the price of the products you sell to cover your losses, then again, you might not. If your product is disposable razors, the answer is not "no, but hell no." If you're manufacturing something else, maybe you can get away with a price increase, but you can't keep increasing prices forever. So, are you going to switch to rail/river transport before, or after, your company files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection? Well, whatever you do, you'll do it long before oils peak.

If you want to follow the real action, you just have to watch your basic economic indicators and keep an eye on the prices of oils to get an idea of what will happen and when.

I'm not even sure oils can peak. Rising prices have a very strong tendency to reduce demand. Reduced demand for oils/refined oil products will be involuntary for the majority of households, manufacturers and governments. And, of course, as prices continue rising and households, manufacturers and governments start seeking substitutes, so demand will decline further.

I know the Doomers with much elaborate fanfare present their laundry list ad naseum of sundry items you'll never ever see again making your life miserable forever and ever because of peak oils, but that's sheer ignorance. There are thousands of substitutes for oil based products and nearly all of the items on their list were made for decades using animal fats before switching to oils.

Cosmetics is a good example, having been made with animal fats through the 1980s before switching to oils. Okay, maybe there won't be 750 Gazillion colors, and maybe lipstick won't be sheeny and shiny and glossy and not stick very well while performing, you know, that thing, but people will survive.

Anyway, just watch the economic indicators and don't forget that the data is skewed where the US is concerned.

[Alpaca]

The model for world peak is little more that adding up the individual peaks of once and current oil producing nations, as previously stated. As a well defined economic and geological model, it seems basically beyond dispute. At least speaking as a lay person (i.e not an economist nor a geologist) As demonstrated though, we still seem to need to TRY and dispute it.

The 'argument' naturally turns to the effects of dwindling supplies in the face of (likely) increasing demand. Yeah sure, there may be some technological advance that 'saves our bacon', or at least keeps it outta the fire for a few years. Never underestimate the power of the brainiacs and Asain kids squirelled away in universities, right? But, personally, I doubt it.

All (or at least most) of the evidence points toward a very hard landing post peak, with only anemic attempts at "Conservation". "We'll keep doing what we've been doing until we can't, and then we won't" to paraphase 'ol whats-his-name. And it sure seems like 'full steam ahead' and 'smoke 'em if ya got 'em' until we can't afford it anymore. Then things are likely to get interesting, and it just becomes a matter of when and 'how interesting'.

[mkwin]

I find a number of elements of peak oil die-off scenario a little weak – such as;

1. I understand peak oil occurs when half of the economically extractable resources have been exhausted. However changing economic situations affect what is classified as economical to extract - surely there is now more economically extractable oil when the price of oil is $60+? Hence, more investment and greater expense on older equipment surely would increase the amount of oil economically recoverable in the medium term.

2. Another trend seems to be to assume a recession will lead to a failures and eventually permanent failure of the energy grid system. I just can't see this happening as it's too important for any government to let collapse. The government will simply nationalize the energy system.

3. Also, what about the collapse in demand for oil during the recession - surely this would further the plateau to allow time for further substitution to coal to liquids etc. The Hirsch report talks about a minimum lead in period of 10 years to migrate much of the economic difficulties but he also assumes NIMBY attitudes will cause much of the hold up. In an economic crises governments around the world will likely take emergency measures to override local objection and will get support from the majority, who won’t be effected but will enjoy the benefit, to build alternative infrastructure.

4. If the depression was very severer and tax revenue collapsed surely the government would opt for some kind of rationing system and compulsory nation service of unemployed people put to work maintaining food production, collecting resources and assisting in less technical roles in the investment in alternative and renewable infrastructure.

It seems to me there are a huge amount of possible courses of action that could be followed and many ways this can play itself out. In a worst case scenario I can see a neo-communist set-up being adopted in many countries in order to maintain the core activities of the government. Hopefully this big government role will have representation on some areas of life and a strong legislator so power won’t become too centralized. In the more moderate scenario I can see a prolonged period of stagflation, some governmental intervention and a semi-managed economy before some areas of the industrialized world reach a degree of stability.

In both scenarios, I think the developing and third-world will be faring far worse than the developed world as the new urban masses and poor people already dependant on aid starve. In the case of the developed world – in both cases - the quality of living will be reduced, in the UK possibly similar to that of the post-WW2 era when Britain was the poor man of Europe. Given the level of organization, technical ability, education and, generally, good food production capabilities, I think – assuming Olduvai Theory is correct – much of the populations of North America, Europe and Russia will survive making up a significant portion of the 2 billion left. Possibly reducing, due to decreasing birthrates, to around 750 million by 2050.

The bottom line is, while it’s important to prepare for the worst it can’t be helpful to assume it.

[azreal60]

The problem is, no one is even Planning for the worst. All our government policy is planning not even for the median possibility. They are almost all planning for the best and figuring they can make it up as they go along. That kinda of thing is why most of the posters on this site are doomers.

Your right though, if people where planning for doom, then it would stop being doom.

That's the trick isn't it?

[MonteQuest]

I find a number of elements of peak oil die-off scenario a little weak – such as;

1. I understand peak oil occurs when half of the economically extractable resources have been exhausted. However changing economic situations affect what is classified as economical to extract - surely there is now more economically extractable oil when the price of oil is $60+? Hence, more investment and greater expense on older equipment surely would increase the amount of oil economically recoverable in the medium term.

However, history has shown that not to be the case. Money and technology cannot reverse decline, only slow it temporarily...then the decline rate steepens as a result.