ROCKMAN wrote:Byron - "I became a 'peaker' back around 1999". You're a tad late but welcome to the party anyway. LOL. I was tutored on the harsh reality of PO in 1975 by my first mentor at Mobil Oil...
ROCKMAN wrote:In a while, crocodile... LOL. I agree. The vast majority of folks don't realize the leverage fossil fuels have provided them. If you're old enough maybe you remember cutting the grass with a manual rotary mower. Perhaps if we banned gasoline powered mowers folks would better appreciate the gift of hydrocarbons. But in time many will begin to learn that lesson one way or the other. Some already have.
ROCKMAN wrote:six - Before the shale boom you were paying 1/3 the cost to fill your gas tank up. So you're happier now producing the shales since doing so required you to pay 3X as much for oil? I'm pretty sure you and most here understand that if you weren't paying so much for gasoline we wouldn't be drilling the shales. Or dies someone believe the shale boom would continue with $35/bbl oil?
C8 wrote:PO argument: yes we are producing more oil- but look at the costs!
Counterargument: oil prices have been stable the last 3 years and are lower than $140 a barrel over 6 years ago- besides which, given what oil can do and how concentrated and energy source it is- it is still a killer bargain at this price. And BTW- inflation has raised the price of many things- why do you still expect oil to be $30 a barrel?
PO argument: But we are still going to run out someday so this news is worthless
Counterargument: yes we will run out, but "when" makes all the difference- with enough time we can transition to other energy sources smoothly- plus research is leading to more energy efficient living. More time changes everything
Counterargument: this reveals Peak Oil as a faith based movement- not a science based one. There is simply no way to predict the pace and course of future scientific discoveries. The greatest flaw of PO is that is completely relies on the certainty that science is spent- yet no evidence to support this amazing conclusion is ever presented- it is simply accepted as a "Peak Oil Truth." It is in this dogmatic belief that the PO is revealed as more of a religious viewpoint than a rational one. A group so united by the desire to see collapse that objectivity is no longer welcome.
PO argument: this will lead to global warming doom- so more oil condemns us
Counterargument: or it could lead to the time needed for scientific insights which help avert GW. Prosperous economies are more able to fund science research which increase the odds of game changing discoveries. I welcome the rising research in newly prosperous China for instance.
It should be noted that GW is not 100% understood- oceans contain over 90% of all the thermal mass and we have only begun recording deep ocean temperatures very recently- there is still much more to discover to understand what really drives what. The recent deflection of surface temperatures from CO2 levels were not predicted by "experts" 7 years ago- this should give any fair minded person a pause. I am not a denier but I also respect how complex this system is. A truly scientific attitude doesn't not lead to "belief" or "denial"- these are the realm of religion. I believe we should invest in renewables to be on the safe side.
forbin wrote:just remember PO is the peak of production , nothing more , nothing less, running out is something else
and you can speculate as much as you like with the rest of them - good luck
ROCKMAN wrote:If you're old enough maybe you remember cutting the grass with a manual rotary mower. Perhaps if we banned gasoline powered mowers folks would better appreciate the gift of hydrocarbons.
I became a 'peaker' back around 1999 after reading two opposing articles. One was the Economist article about the world being awash in oil and suggesting that the price could even drop to five bucks a barrel. The other was the Sci America article about global production peaking in the near future. Both articles proved incorrect but I believed that the Sci American article was on to something that I had never considered.
AirlinePilot wrote:Folks I know...even the intelligent ones.....can never seem to figure out the difference between what crude oil and total liquids mean. Since the classifications changed years ago, at least in the reporting arena, it is the most important piece of information to understand. Its also the most abused and manipulated number by everyone.
All the comments in response to this news really hammer home that Peak Oilers
are not characterized mainly by the belief that we will run out of oil-
but the desire that we run out of oil.
Sixstrings wrote:Who could have ever predicted such a thing?
Or, things like 3d printers -- who could ever have thought that up, years ago. And next is 3d food printing. It's practically the Jetsons lately, just missing the flying cars and fusion power.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests