[SamInNebraska]

Hubbert also used a pencil in his calculations, but the issue of peak oil has little to do with pencil lead. It is about production rates--- the peak in production rates.

Which he calculated from cumulative production, RESERVES, and RESOURCE estimates. The production rates were the results of that calculation, they did not spring out of thin air. Therefore, cumulative production, reserves, and resources all must be part of the conversation to calculate the thing you are fixated on...production rates.

[SamInNebraska]

Perhaps some doomers made a big mistake by predicting imminent collapse.

What about the boy who cried wolf component?

[Keith_McClary]

Don't forget methane on Jupiter!

What I can't figure out is if there is 20 million tons of gold in the earth's oceans, why is gold so expensive?

Pops I can supply you with all the Gold from Seawater you could possibly want or need for the low Low LOW price of $7,777,777 an ounce! Sign up now before all the investor slots are filled on the roster!

The bug that lays the golden egg

Among the more peculiar organisms that inhabit our Earth exists a bacterium that turns water-soluble gold into microscopic nuggets of solid gold

Notice, I refrained from starting a new "Gold Pooping Bugs" thread.

[Dybbuk]

What about the boy who cried wolf component?

The boy who cried wolf syndrome is a valid and understandable psychological phenomenon. It doesn't necessarily lead one to the truth. If one boy falsely cries wolf, is it rational to ignore all other boys who ever cry wolf again? Is it rational to deny the existence of wolves?

[SamInNebraska]

Therefore, cumulative production, reserves, and resources all must be part of the conversation to calculate the thing you are fixated on...production rates.

"Fixated on?" IT IS THE DEFINITION. PERIOD.

The definition of peak oil is currently centered on price, not absolute supply. I learned this right here at this website, and the references provided from this website. isn't that why we come to these types of forums, to learn? I learned that peak oil is all about regular folks not being able to afford fuels, economies not being able to afford fuels, I believe you provided information on this very point from Hamilton. Are you now saying that he, and the others who say that this is the crux of the matter, are wrong? Certainly this idea has next to nothing to do with Hubbert, so the validity of it is somewhat suspect, but Hamilton makes a reasonable case for it, and he is YOUR reference.

As far as HOW peak oil is calculated, that number, done the way Hubbert did it, involved knowing cumulative production, reserves, and resources. Which means...if we want to calculate rate because peak oil is somewhere lurking nearby, we MUST know about cumulative production, reserves and resources, so CERTAINLY is is valid to talk about them, and if you take Hubbert at his word, and use his method, you MUST talk about them.

http://www.peak-oil-crisis.com/

[dorlomin]

Perhaps some doomers made a big mistake by predicting imminent collapse.

And yet a great many people who know about peak oil did not make these predictions.

What about the boy who cried wolf component?

Or the 'pick the extreme and shout loudly about that because I am to cowardly to engage with the moderates'.

Hi Shorty.

[SamInNebraska]

What about the boy who cried wolf component?

The boy who cried wolf syndrome is a valid and understandable psychological phenomenon. It doesn't necessarily lead one to the truth. If one boy falsely cries wolf, is it rational to ignore all other boys who ever cry wolf again? Is it rational to deny the existence of wolves?

True. I was thinking more about the psychological conditioning. Continuously proclaim a disaster which never arrives, and it is completely expected that people will lump you in with the loons. And because peak oil has been reconfigured to be about price, rather than scarcity, it becomes even more difficult to explain to others. They just look at you with those furrowed brows which say, "you are too well fed and well dressed to be homeless, and you don't smell of excrement that I can tell, but what you just said would lead me to believe..."

[SamInNebraska]

You have it backward Sam. Both Hubbert and Defreyess determine reserves under the production curve, which they arrive at with an incredibly complex calculus (in Hubbert's case) or pretty simple algerbra using Deffreyes linearization. There are other methods; mega-fields analysis and discovery/peak observation.

Hubbert has a figure which shows exactly what he did. And it includes reserves AND resources to calculate the peak production point. It is a quite famous figure if you aren't familiar with it. Cumulative production, reserves, and undiscovered resources (the worst kind!) and presto...you have the rate. I always thought the simplistic nature of it lent it credibility in a world of people using information mostly to hide, confuse and deceive.

Even if national/corporate oil entities were more truthful regarding their p59/p95 reserves, we'd still only have a vague idea as to when the oil will run out. That is why folks study production, reserves, economies, prices, and politics looking for clues. It is such an important subject.

It is. And why we need to discuss reserves and resources as well as production rate. The way Hubbert built that graph, you need them all.

[dissident]

Peak oil denier nitpicks would imply that the insurance industry could never estimate risk. There has been enough observational data gathered from all of the developed oil fields to characterize their life cycle. There has also been enough data gathered in the last several decades about discovery of said fields to also characterize the probability of further discoveries. It's not just blind linear extrapolation.

There is a reason why non conventional is all the rage. That is because conventional is not providing what is needed by the world economy. And guess what: non-conventional is quite well characterized too. There has been enough field work around the planet to characterize all the geology of the surface and even the seabed. There are no gaps hiding Ghawar scale conventional oil fields or vast bitumenous sand deposits. We know that hydrocarbon deposits are kerogen in the Green River basin and not light sweet crude. It's only lying turd journalists who neglect to mention this and imply there are trillions of barrels of oil. When they build those nuclear power plants to convert kerogen into oil then there will be something to talk about.

[SamInNebraska]

Sam, what complete paranoid nonsense. Are you a child? Nobody is trying to deceive you. We are looking for the truth. Do you really expect petroleum to last forever?

You are changing the subject. The original point was that you said we shouldn't be talking about reserves and resources. I am simply showing that to the best of my ability to determine it, not only do we need to talk about rate, but JUST AS HUBBERT DID, we also need to consider reserves and resources. This has nothing to do with petroleum lasting forever, or my age.

As for Hubbert's methods you don't have the faintest clue how he arrived at his calculus. It is a mystery to me. And to you. So don't pretend to critique it. You are only making a fool of yourself.

Me? I know better than to arbitrarily dismiss reserves and resources if a person really wants to try and predict a future peak oil.

[SamInNebraska]

Peak oil denier nitpicks would imply that the insurance industry could never estimate risk. There has been enough observational data gathered from all of the developed oil fields to characterize their life cycle. There has also been enough data gathered in the last several decades about discovery of said fields to also characterize the probability of further discoveries. It's not just blind linear extrapolation.

Exactly! Which means when the experts estimate such things, it might be really helpful to pay attention. This stuff really does matter!

http://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/worldshalegas/

http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp ... _id=117086

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.as ... Q84ZKVQXW8

[meemoe_uk]

One of my favorite writers at WUWT, Willis Eschenbach has written a piece on peak oil. It's nice to read that he's got pretty much the same criticism I have about non \ conventional oil. Every year oil technology improves, so previous years conventions are gradually replaced in the industry. So this idea of drawing a line in the sand to say what constitutes conventional and non-con is meaningless when weighing up peak oil.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/02/c ... more-78653

[Beery1]

One of my favorite writers at WUWT, Willis Eschenbach has written a piece on peak oil.

He seems to think that kerogen is exactly the same as light sweet crude and that fracking the dregs out of a depleted reservoir is exactly the same as drilling a hole and finding a gusher.

In short, he's an idiot.

[dorlomin]

One of my favorite writers at ....

How many hours did this flounce last?

When a member of an online community announces they are leaving, usually after a protracted disagreement with other members of the community.
"I'm gone. You all enjoy your little discussions."

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=flounce

[dorlomin]

True. I was thinking more about the psychological conditioning.

Now try writing that in a coherent English sentence.

Continuously proclaim a disaster which never arrives, and it is completely expected that people will lump you in with the loons.

When ever you sign on with a new ID its the exact same tone trolling and cherry picking of the extreme.

Since you are now a self annointed expert on 'psycholamalogical' science try this one....."Obsessive compulsive ". As always, happy to help.