Daniel Doom wrote:Daniel Doom wrote:Robert Rapier. August 31, 2017. Oil demand is growing nearly everywhere. Forbes.
"Two years old,"
DD: Which is not very old, since little has changed in the last two years.
Not according to Rystad, WoodMac, Barclays and CSIS. They have published their expectations within the last 6 or so? So yes...old..and demand growth deceleration is quite obvious to those looking..NOW.
Daniel Doom wrote: "and from a former Happy McPeakster. I was talking about data and real analysts"
DD: Rapier has the background and experience to qualify as a "real analyst." He also cites data.
Robert also has already fallen for peak oil. I agree, he has background and experience, and been discredited by reality in that regard. And he does cite data...back when it said something different than it apparently does today.
Daniel Doom wrote:"and whatnot, and you come up with discredited peak oilers doing same-old same-old?"
DD: discredited by whom? You seem to be saying that you can dismiss his arguments because they are wrong, and they are wrong because you have dismissed them!
Perhaps you just aren't familiar with some of his ideas, since discredited?
Peak Oil is here, it just doesn’t look like you expect it to. It reflects an inability to secure the energy supplies you need to keep economies growing. It means that rationing is here, but it will be rationing by price (at least in the beginning).
R. Rapier, April 24, 2006
So does this fit into your vision of peak oil, it having happened? Saudi America doesn't appear to have been considered (lack of geologic understanding I imagine?), haven't seen real rationing, but he appears to think it will be price that does it. This was all some 10+ million barrels a day ago.
David Doom wrote:DD: 1. Production has not just decelerated recently but has actually fallen. If I used your depth of perception, I would be claiming that this is proof that oil has now peaked, but it could just be a slowing economy explaining both the weaker demand growth and the falling production, so I will wait and watch; and--
Robert claimed peak oil has peaked. I'm not certain what your position is. And production has been mostly irrelevant, ever since Saudi Arabia began visibly fighting Saudi America, circa 2013 or so.
Daniel Doom wrote:2. Even if global demand were to instantly, seemingly magically, go completely flat, we would still be headed for a peak oil crisis; it is just a matter of how fast we get there; and--
I said global demand growth deceleration, as presented by folks with far more experience and insight than you, I, or Robert. And according to peak oilers, saying things just like you, we've been having peak oils for like 30 years now. Your claim is different from all those other ones, how?
Daniel Doom wrote:3. No one has been discredited by events simply because he did not look into a crystal ball and foresee the quantity of tight oil which would be rapidly produced and sold at well below the total cost of production. After all, not even the most pollyannish of optimists predicted that scenario back in the nervous years when oil was running up to $147 a barrel.
I have never in my life seen a peak oil caveat their "peak oil is happening now, tomorrow, next year" with "but me not knowing anything about resource economics, oil field completion techniques stretching back into the 1940's, horizontal drilling, or oil resources prototyped in the Appalachian basin the 1800's means I could be full of crap." I accept that if they had included this caveat, they wouldn't all now be hiding under rocks.
Daniel Doom wrote:However, it is universally acknowledged among oil analysts that tight oil will peak relatively soon and then go into slow but irreversible decline.
There has already been peaks in tight oil. So sure, undoubtedly there will be more. The EIA is currently calling for just such a peak, so I agree that this is the most common expected outcome..right now...from the experts.
Daniel Doom wrote:4. A little over the peak oil horizon, other energy sources look to peak in the not too distant future: U235, coal (as measured in joules or BTU's, not just gross tonnage), and natural gas. The farther down the road we can kick the peak oil barrel, the closer together these assorted peaks will cluster. And--
And how many times has these claims been made before, only to drive their advocates under the same rock the peak oilers retreated to? Uranium being a good one, perhaps you missed Hubbert's 1956 seminal work? The hint is in the title, and reason why it matters is inside the paper. I recommend reading it. NUCLEAR ENERGY and the Fossil Fuels. Give it a go, and then we can laugh together about uranium shortages.
Daniel Doom wrote:5. We did not transition from the stone age to the bronze age because we ran out of stones, but if we had in fact run out of stones before we discovered how to make bronze, we would have been really, really screwed.
So now I can accurately mention that you didn't provide a single piece of information to dispute what CSIS, Rystad, WoodMac and Barclays have been saying. You are following a pretty predicable Happy McPeakster outline. Try updating your world view with what has happened since the retreat to under the rock happened perhaps?