DesuMaiden wrote:@AdamB Everything I present is based on fact. Like how 2005/2006 was when half of all of the world's recoverable oil has already been extracted.
Pops wrote:DesuMaiden wrote:@AdamB Everything I present is based on fact. Like how 2005/2006 was when half of all of the world's recoverable oil has already been extracted.
Prove this.
DesuMaiden wrote:@AdamB Everything I present is based on fact. Like how 2005/2006 was when half of all of the world's recoverable oil has already been extracted.
DesuMaiden wrote:You are denying it because you are afraid of the unpleasent conclusions.
DesuMaiden wrote:I do find the conclusion of a fast, steep decline in oil extraction to be unpleasent, too, but I accept this fact despite the unpleasent conclusion that it will lead to a fast collapse.
DesuMaiden wrote:Pops wrote:DesuMaiden wrote:@AdamB Everything I present is based on fact. Like how 2005/2006 was when half of all of the world's recoverable oil has already been extracted.
Prove this.
what good would that do if you are likely a shill who would deny facts?
DesuMaiden wrote: The 1/2 way point literally happened in 2005, but what good would that do when shills like you will deny it?
AdamB wrote:DesuMaiden wrote:Pops wrote:DesuMaiden wrote:@AdamB Everything I present is based on fact. Like how 2005/2006 was when half of all of the world's recoverable oil has already been extracted.
Prove this.
what good would that do if you are likely a shill who would deny facts?
Look in a mirror and answer that question. Best I can tell, you haven't mentioned a fact yet, just the usual recycling of the kind of information that peak oilers have used to declare peak oil a half dozen time since Colin Campbell got involved.DesuMaiden wrote: The 1/2 way point literally happened in 2005, but what good would that do when shills like you will deny it?
What good does it do when it is wrong? Amateur level gaslighting of oil and gas faux facts is very Trumpian, but not useful to the conversation.
OutcastPhilosopher wrote:DesuMaiden wrote:OutcastPhilosopher wrote:DesuMaiden wrote:Back in 2005-2006, about 1/2 of all recoverable oil was already extracted. That was when the world experienced the first peak of global oil extraction, which lead to the 2008 to 2009 economic recession. Briefly, in 2008, the price of oil spiked at 147 usd /barrel. Note that I use the term "extraction" rather than "production" because the former is what we actually do...extract oil; we don't "produce" oil.
From 2005 to 2010, conventional oil extraction reached a global peak, which prevented any further economic growth. Thus leading to a major recession in 2008. The peak of oil extraction is reached when about 1/2 of all of the recoverable oil has been extracted, and that was in 2005-2006.
However, the elites of the world didn't want oil extraction to enter a permanent decline in 2008-2009, so they ramped up the rate of oil extraction from 2010 onwards. So rather than let global oil extraction rates enter a natural decline once 1/2 of all recoverable oil has been used up, the elites wanted economic growth to continue. Thus, they ramped up the level of oil extraction from 2010 onwards to delay the inevtable decline in oil extraction. So global oil extraction ,from 2010 onwardly slightly grew for a few more years, until 2018 when the all-time peak of global oil extraction was reached.
Then Coronavirus struck in 2020 , leading to a 10% decrease in oil demand. And this decrease in oil demand --caused by covid-19 --is probably the only reason why we haven't felt oil shortages yet. Once the covid-19 pandemic is over, oil demand will go back to what it was in 2019 (before the pandemic), but this time the rate of oil extraction will enter a permanent decline. Thus, causing a massive shortage of oil supply because of the demand outstripping the supply.
Because the peak of global oil extraction was delayed by the elites, the rate of decline of oil extraction will be much greater than if they let it naturally decline when 1/2 of the recoverable oil was gone. We probably already depleted around 80% of all recoverable oil this planet ever had. At the very least. Meaning the rate of decline of oil extraction will be a very steep curve. Rather than a relatively slow decline of 2-3% per year if decline was to happen after 50-60% depletion, we will now have a rapid decline of 6 to 7% per year from after 80-85% depletion.
So yes, ironically, by delaying the global peak of oil extraction by ramping up extraction rates, we lead to a much steeper decline rate when the decline became inevitable. And due to the rapid decline rates, industrial civilization will rapidly collapse rather than slowly decay.
Yes. We will have a seneca cliff style collapse.
It is reflected in the insane money printing. This thing is going off the cliff.
Let me give you a quote for context.
"It may not be profitable to slow decline...simply put, more money can be made--more quickly--by accelerating decline, bankrupting the country, starving people, and selling off assets than by investing it in rebuilding under a new economic paradigm or by trying to soften the crash"
The above quote was from Michael Ruppert's book, Confronting Collapse. Let that sink in for you. I suspected this ,for many years, to be true. Given how the government vehemently denies peak oil, it seems like they are intentionally try to accelerate the rate at which things fall apart. Also, when you notice how everything is becoming increasingly more unsustainable--longer and more fragile supply chains, more and more imported and exported goods and services, globalization increasing, rather than decreasing, during the past couple of years--it is literally true that more money can be made from accelerating the decline.
Well, I am not sure if I completely agree with that because I believe the "System" operates in a feedback loop. Essentially, due to all of the liabilities and other matters, the money printing is going to go exponential because we have a financial system based on the equation: debt raised to the power of time. Nothing can keep up with this, which is why in hyperinflation you have people becoming quadrillionaires. Now will the "insiders" game the system and try to profit? Of course. In a declining energy environment, currency printing is going to accelerate. There is a correlation there.
The other thing that Ruppert doesn't go into, is that industrial society/financial system requires more and more complexity in order to keep us at the same place we are. This is why the longer supply chains, just in time services, etc. The "System" requires it to keep functioning.....until it cannot.
How to rebuild a new economic system? Ask yourself what would happen if the President, Federal Reserve Chairman, etc. came out on television and told everyone that Social Security was bankrupt and they would halt payments immediately. Can you imagine the outrage that people would have? The vast majority of people don't understand or comprehend the "System" at all because it has created vast dependency on it. When it fails, which it is going to, people are going to absolutely lose their minds.
You also have to take into account that all of the insiders "wealth" is tied up with the "System" also. They don't necessarily want a new system either because they are doing so much better than everyone else.
DesuMaiden wrote:AdamB wrote:What good does it do when it is wrong? Amateur level gaslighting of oil and gas faux facts is very Trumpian, but not useful to the conversation.
Nobody said that the decline in oil extraction would necessarily begin right after half of the reserves where depleted.
DesuMaiden wrote:What Colin Campbell and many other reputable peak oil experts correctly said was "if decline happens right after the half way point of depletion, it would be a 2-3% decline/year".
DesuMaiden wrote: Sorry, but 2005 to 2006 was literally the date when half of all oil reserves were depleted, and a mere 2-3% decline rate would only have been possible if the decline occurred at 1/2 depletion.
DesuMaiden wrote:The world had about 2 trillion barrels of recoverable oil at the beginning of the oil age in 1859.
OutcastPhilosopher wrote:"It may not be profitable to slow decline...simply put, more money can be made--more quickly--by accelerating decline, bankrupting the country, starving people, and selling off assets than by investing it in rebuilding under a new economic paradigm or by trying to soften the crash"
The above quote was from Michael Ruppert's book, Confronting Collapse. Let that sink in for you. I suspected this ,for many years, to be true.
DesuMaiden wrote: Simply all we can do is continue BAU until it cannot continue to function anymore. It is just a matter of time when supply chains literally start to break down, there are gasoline shortages, the airline industry permanently shuts down, hyperinflation occurs, supermarket shelves go unstocked with food and other items, and finally the electricity grid permanently goes out.
AdamB wrote:OutcastPhilosopher wrote:"It may not be profitable to slow decline...simply put, more money can be made--more quickly--by accelerating decline, bankrupting the country, starving people, and selling off assets than by investing it in rebuilding under a new economic paradigm or by trying to soften the crash"
The above quote was from Michael Ruppert's book, Confronting Collapse. Let that sink in for you. I suspected this ,for many years, to be true.
Conspiracy nutter was bad enough, now folks who committed themselves to Bellevue is your source for information? A ex-cop who used a convicted child predator as a source on information for 9/11, that is where you find gems of info?
DesuMaiden wrote:Pops wrote:DesuMaiden wrote:@AdamB Everything I present is based on fact. Like how 2005/2006 was when half of all of the world's recoverable oil has already been extracted.
Prove this.
what good would that do if you are likely a shill who would deny facts? I already suspect you are a shill because you present blatantly dishonest information. Keep on denying reality until everything falls apart. I know you are a shill because you deny well-documented facts to mislead people. The 1/2 way point literally happened in 2005, but what good would that do when shills like you will deny it? I will not respond to shills like you any further.
The production rate will be zero when the reference time is zero, and the rate will again be zero when the resource is exhausted; that is to say, in the production of any resource of fixed magnitude, the production rate must begin at zero, and then after passing through one or several maxima, it must decline again to zero.
The only a priori information concerning the magnitude of the ultimate cumulative production of which we may be certain is tha tit will be less than, or at most equal to, the quantity of the resource initially present.
However, secondary recovery techniques are gradually being improved so that ultimately a somewhat larger but still unknown fraction of the oil underground should be extracted than is now the case. Because of the slowness of the secondary recovery process, however, it appears unlikely that any improvement that can be made within the next 10 or 15 years can have any significant effect upon the date of culmination.
Plantagenet wrote:DesuMaiden wrote: Simply all we can do is continue BAU until it cannot continue to function anymore. It is just a matter of time when supply chains literally start to break down, there are gasoline shortages, the airline industry permanently shuts down, hyperinflation occurs, supermarket shelves go unstocked with food and other items, and finally the electricity grid permanently goes out.
Not necessarily. If the government would get to work right now we could have a carbon tax to wean people off fossil fuels and we could have a crash program to build nuclear power plants and solar and wind electric power plants to keep things going.
The electricity grid doesn’t have to go down.....we can run everything easily on nuclear and renewables.
But, unfortunately, Biden and the other dim witted world leaders aren’t going to take the necessary steps to save the planet. Lets put the blame where it belongs. Its NOT inevitable that we go off the Seneca Cliff——— its the fault of our very stupid and very incompetent political leaders.
Cheers!
Pops wrote:DesuMaiden wrote:Pops wrote:DesuMaiden wrote:@AdamB Everything I present is based on fact. Like how 2005/2006 was when half of all of the world's recoverable oil has already been extracted.
Prove this.
what good would that do if you are likely a shill who would deny facts? I already suspect you are a shill because you present blatantly dishonest information. Keep on denying reality until everything falls apart. I know you are a shill because you deny well-documented facts to mislead people. The 1/2 way point literally happened in 2005, but what good would that do when shills like you will deny it? I will not respond to shills like you any further.
LOL, so as soon as you're called on your BS you give up without argument and resort to ad homs?
Pretty weak.
I was one of the first members and the first moderator so if I'm a shill then so is the whole site.
Look at the sidebar, click where it says "What is PO?"
I wrote that primer 17 years ago, I drew those pretty, smooth curves. Basically I made the same mistake you are but did it a decade before you showed up.
Look at this chart of US production, does it look like bell to you?
Hubbert said:The production rate will be zero when the reference time is zero, and the rate will again be zero when the resource is exhausted; that is to say, in the production of any resource of fixed magnitude, the production rate must begin at zero, and then after passing through one or several maxima, it must decline again to zero.The only a priori information concerning the magnitude of the ultimate cumulative production of which we may be certain is tha tit will be less than, or at most equal to, the quantity of the resource initially present.
So, the curve will begin and end with zero, have one or more peaks and be just as high but no higher that the resource allows.
Then like everyone he made a guess at the ultimate resource, (actually used other's guess but whatever) and he came up with the cool linearization too. But they are all guesses.
He also said:However, secondary recovery techniques are gradually being improved so that ultimately a somewhat larger but still unknown fraction of the oil underground should be extracted than is now the case. Because of the slowness of the secondary recovery process, however, it appears unlikely that any improvement that can be made within the next 10 or 15 years can have any significant effect upon the date of culmination.
I don't know if fracking is a "secondary technique" since it is employed initially but regardless, it has not only wrecked the curve because it was not slow in the least and it but increased the ultimate as well.
So, you could point to lots of different pieces of evidence, conventional plateau, fracking not expanding to other countries, low/no discoveries, majors going green, blah, blah, but you can't say oil production peaked at the "halfway point" in 2005 and be taken seriously. Pretty obvious to any observer it didn't.
DesuMaiden wrote:You didn't do anything to refute the undeniable scientific fact that half of all recoverable global oil reserves was depleted by 2005.
DesuMaiden wrote:AdamB wrote:OutcastPhilosopher wrote:"It may not be profitable to slow decline...simply put, more money can be made--more quickly--by accelerating decline, bankrupting the country, starving people, and selling off assets than by investing it in rebuilding under a new economic paradigm or by trying to soften the crash"
The above quote was from Michael Ruppert's book, Confronting Collapse. Let that sink in for you. I suspected this ,for many years, to be true.
Conspiracy nutter was bad enough, now folks who committed themselves to Bellevue is your source for information? A ex-cop who used a convicted child predator as a source on information for 9/11, that is where you find gems of info?
Ok I tried to reason with you, but now I realized that is futile because you clearly deny well-established scientific facts.
DesuMaiden wrote:And no reliable source indicates that there is 12 trillion barrels of oil.
DesuMaiden wrote:You repeatedly deny peak oil experts, like Richard Heinberg and Colin Campbell.....,
DesuMaiden wrote: You deny these facts, despite all of the evidence I presented, which indicates you are either misinformed or trying to mislead people. Hopefully, the former is correct because I hope you aren't a disinfo agent.
DesuMaiden wrote:Michael Ruppert and many other doomers were 100% correct about how peak oil (and other civilizational and environmental problems) will inevitably lead to the collapse of industrial civilization.
DesuMaiden wrote:Well everything you mentioned was due to good intentions, so I applaud you for that. But I don't think nuclear fission and renewables can make up for fossil fuel depletion for several reasons.
DesuMaiden wrote:
You didn't do anything to refute the undeniable scientific fact that half of all recoverable global oil reserves was depleted by 2005.
DesuMaiden wrote: And the shale oil boom didn't change the fact that the usa still had to import about half of all of its oil consumption.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests