ROCKMAN wrote: before we spend too much time talking about a Seneca Cliff perhaps we should wait at least until we can see over the top of the Seneca Hill. Don't you agree? After all we'll have plenty of time later to run around like our hair is on fire. But for right now we're still in the shower washing it. LOL. The doomers will eventually have their day. But it ain't today, tomorrow or even in the next few years.
GHung wrote:AdamB said; "We already know that Hubbert's curve doesn't work..."
In what way? I don't know that.
Revi wrote:I appreciate the way Adam B gets the discussion going, but I really don't understand his points. He is really into tearing down our idols. I guess that makes him an iconoclast, sort've.
AdamB wrote:GHung wrote:AdamB said; "We already know that Hubbert's curve doesn't work..."
In what way? I don't know that.
Really? Well, here is a single chart showing it not working, as best I can figure, the last one that DID work (it already having failed at the world oil level, and US natural gas level).
This graph has some forecast in it, but it turns out that the forecast underestimated where US oil production ended up before lower prices killed it.
ROCKMAN wrote:Ghung - So much of the debate seems to focus on a relatively rapid decrease in oil production due to the current LOWER oil price.
ROCKMAN wrote:Thus when folks argue the current price of oil will cause a "cliff in oil production" it can be difficult to understand what the are implying.
ROCKMAN wrote:Bottom line: oil price could fall 50% from $45/bbl and it would have an insignificant affect on the production rate from EXISTING WELLS. So no "Seneca cliff". Which implies nothing about production rates from wells NOT DRILLED YET. That's a different dynamic. If starting tomorrow not a single bbl of oil were brought on line EVER AGAIN oil production would not "fall off a cliff". The current decline rate of existing global production doesn't come close to a "cliff" profile.
ROCKMAN wrote:SYG - Don't preach to me...go bitch at the folks posting oil production charts. Apparently you weren't paying attention to the flow of the conversation. LOL.
shortonoil wrote:"AdamB said; "We already know that Hubbert's curve doesn't work..."
The primary reason that anyone would say that is probably because they don't understand the difference between a CDF and a PDF.
shortonoil wrote:
According to the EIA, the cumulative production of 1335.37 Gb between 1960 and 2009 deviated from the logistic function (Hubbert's curve) by 0.07 Gb. That is an amazingly accurate determination. It is an error of 0.005%.
SumYunGai wrote:ROCKMAN wrote:SYG - Don't preach to me...go bitch at the folks posting oil production charts. Apparently you weren't paying attention to the flow of the conversation. LOL.
I am not preaching, ROCKMAN. I just noticed (I do hope it is okay to notice stuff) that you cleverly changed the subject from Seneca Cliff to a Seneca cliff in oil production due to the current low oil prices.
AdamB wrote:SumYunGai wrote:ROCKMAN wrote:SYG - Don't preach to me...go bitch at the folks posting oil production charts. Apparently you weren't paying attention to the flow of the conversation. LOL.
I am not preaching, ROCKMAN. I just noticed (I do hope it is okay to notice stuff) that you cleverly changed the subject from Seneca Cliff to a Seneca cliff in oil production due to the current low oil prices.
I dare you to attempt to refute the supply response to price in the US.
AdamB wrote:
Ugo Bargi has been pimping this idea pretty hard. Just another blogger who got it wrong the last time around, trying to recycle yet another version of already discredited ideas.
GHung wrote:As usual, Adam, you are being obtuse as to what Hubbert was actually predicting and what that was based on. You can't even build a good strawman. Ultimately, I don't even know why you are so focussed on proving Hubbert wrong when even our definition of what oil is has changed.
GHung wrote: Seems to me that the whole concept of peak oil scares the crap out of you, as much time and effort that you put into debunking the concept.
GHung wrote: Me? I really don't care since I'm busy getting past my oil addiction while you are busy defending your 19th century energy source.
GHung wrote:Maybe your time would be better spent conjuring up more reserves rather than trying to prove some dead guy was wrong.
GHung wrote:AdamB wrote:SumYunGai wrote:ROCKMAN wrote:SYG - Don't preach to me...go bitch at the folks posting oil production charts. Apparently you weren't paying attention to the flow of the conversation. LOL.
I am not preaching, ROCKMAN. I just noticed (I do hope it is okay to notice stuff) that you cleverly changed the subject from Seneca Cliff to a Seneca cliff in oil production due to the current low oil prices.
I dare you to attempt to refute the supply response to price in the US.
Great response, Adam. As usual, you and Rock view everything through your oily lens.
GHung wrote: Take a broader subject like an all-encompassing decline scenario and reduce it down to what you know; run home to momma oil.
GHung wrote: Of course, there's a complex set of failing arrangements that make oil production possible, just as oil makes those other failing arrangements possible. Compartmentalising any of these things and not incorporating them into a much bigger picture is largely useless.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests