John_A wrote:and there was no cost/supply curve there...this isn't hard Ralfy, just grab the graphic showing the cost supply curve.
Because it wasn't presented by Birol when he was interviewed by the ABC. Pay attention, John.
Don't know, don't care, the question was a competing cost supply curve rather than trying to get around it through text explanations which can't substitute for such a wonderfully packaged and all encompassing product.
That is the problem: you don't know, and you don't care. This was shown in your wrong interpretation of Hubbert's report and in your failure to explain why an oil-supply cost curve is important in validating the production levels for fields yet to be found and yet to be discovered.
Not interested in what Fatih said, he says all kinds of things, I'm just looking for the cost/supply curve to refute the one HIS organization put out. ASPO is bound to have one somewhere, you claimed they exist and it was just my sheer inability go read through all the unrelated links...so fine, just post the cost/supply curve and THEN you can try and weasel around what it says any way you'd like
Actually, the supply cost curve you presented is not supposed to refute the IEA forecast for production but validate it. Or are you claiming that the curve is supposed to lead to higher production levels? If so, is there any report that you can present that shows such?
Again, what you need to look at is the IEA forecast for production and not the supply cost curve. Remember, both sets of data come from the SAME organization, but it is the former that is important because it shows production levels. Your claim that the supply cost curve explains production levels is not true. Or are you claiming that the IEA production forecast is wrong?
Isn't helpful...because you can't find one to compete with IEAs, even after saying you had provided it.
Again, you don't need a supply cost curve. In fact, that was implicit in your first reaction, when you insisted that the IEA simply follows what Hubbert did in determining forecasts for fields yet to be found, etc. Or are you now claiming that Hubbert used such curves prominently in his report?
It was only when you were proven wrong about Hubbert that you argued that the IEA supply cost curve proves their production forecast for conventional production, which flat lines for the next two decades. But you did not explain in any of your messages how the two are connected.
That's why I decided to look at what Aleklett said, which you mistakenly thought presented his analysis in a blog entry but was proven wrong. According to Aleklett, the production forecast for fields currently being used is correct, but the rest appears to follow a maximum depletion analysis and URR, which takes place theoretically.
So, you see, the next logical step is for you to show the connection between the IEA supply cost curve and the IEA production forecast. Can you do that?
How about we try honesty Ralfy? The IEA provides a critical piece of information related to the potential for supply and cost spanning the next half century. It shows that we haven't produced anywhere near 50% of the resource, that the cost of supply of that resource is not very much higher than what we already pay, and now you admittedly can't find anything to demonstrate these same issues from an opposing view without launching off into a explanation exercise, because YOU need to shuck and jive, and that cost/supply curve does not.
Can you prove that it is a "critical piece of information" by showing what the new production forecast for "the next half century" should be based on the IEA supply cost curve? The IEA presented its production forecast up to 2030 based on the same supply cost curve and shows only a 9-pct increase in energy produced from oil and gas sources.
Is the IEA forecast wrong?
Your opinion remains your opinion without one, this type of cost/supply curve from a major institution with capabilities far beyond your own has meaning in all the arenas necessary to discuss this issue, and you have words, with occasional forays into credit this or economic that, when NONE of those are needed.
One more time: the IEA has a supply cost curve, and with that, shows a 9-pct increase in energy produced from oil and gas sources until 2030.
Are you saying that the the 9-pct increase is too high, too low, or correct? Can you give reasons why?
Provide a competing cost/supply curve, THEN you can explain how your version is better than the IEAs, and why, and point to the cost/supply curve as the basis for that opinion. But without it? You have no basis, you obviously aren't an economist because you would know immediately why this is so important, particularly within Rockmans POD concept, and trying to replace it with supposition, hyperbole, superstition, and long winded and off topic explanations as to why you really have one, but won't provide it, and now admit it doesn't exist, and therefore must not be important, just don't carry any weight.
Re: Rockman's "POD concept," you might want to read this:
future-production-otsf-changing-views-about-peak-oil-t68551-20.html#p1157175Finally, don't forget to look at oil production per capita.