[davidyson2]

Hi all,

I have thorougly studied the peak oil issue over the past four weeks (as thoroughly as possible in such a short time) and found it very credible.

However, before hastening to massive changes in my life plan, I would like to look on the issue from all possible directions.

So, playing advocatus diabolo, I would like to ask: What might be (realistic) hidden agendas of the peak oil proponents that either bias their view or that might even give cause to the assumption that they do not believe in the effect at all?

I am particularly puzzled by the bold statements by Matthew Simmons and Stephen Leeb, who might just want to point to a serious problem to help the world (which I assume), but who, as energy investment guys, might also or even only have different aims - speculation-related aims in particular.

And what about the other experts: Does anyone know of any reasonable aspects that might cast doubt on the predictions from a "who is making these predictions" point of view?

I am not trying to get any "smear", i would rather prefer facts.

Davidyson

[Canuck]

I think this is an excellent question on most issues but is not particularly important in this case. I don't think there really are any axes to grind on this one. A guy like Deffeyes has little to gain with his book. Campbell has very little to gain. Simmons is also writing a book, but there isn't much money in these kinds of books.

The environmentalists like Darley and Kunstler and Ehrlich and the anti-corporate types like Moore and Nader are surely motivated somewhat by schadenfreud. They may be as miserable as everyone else in a post peak world, but at least they are going to enjoy being able to say, "We told you so, we told you so. Nyah, nyah we told you so."

There really is no disputing the issue. It is when, not if. What struck me about Campbell when I first read him was that the case he lays out is common sense. That does not make him right - it was once common sense that the world was flat - but still it makes for a very compelling argument. "You can't produce oil until it is discovered" and "Look at what we are doing to get oil today in the tar sands and with deep ocean drilling. If there was easier oil, wouldn't we be pumping it?"

Nobody disputes the geology or the physics of depletion. Everyone knows a finite resource will be gone one day. That automatically leads us to ask the wrong question "Well, how much is left?" and find a reassuring answer "There is lots and lots left."

Getting past that is the hardest part to grasp about Peak Oil but even that is merely common sense. "How far can a man run into the woods?" was a riddle I remember from my youth. The correct answer is "Half way. After that he is running out of the woods." The correct question with Peak Oil is "When do we start running out of oil?"

All of the arguments are really about the implications of Peak Oil, not the fact of it. None of the name proponents focus too much on this, probably because that focus raises very uncomfortable issues. So most of them leave it where Simmons leaves it, "We're in a lot of trouble and there is no Plan B. We should find out how much trouble we are in, and develop a Plan B."

The economists, on the other hand, dismiss the implications. Yardeni was on CNBC this morning and he declared that the problem came with its own solution. "The price goes up, we use less and the oil companies find more and alternatives become more viable." In other words, the real problems won't start until we actually run out. Starting to run out is a problem that comes with its own solution.

When we look closely at the debunkers and their arguments we discover:

1) They definitely have an agenda, one far more obvious than Peak Oil proponents.

2) The solution on the demand side seriously underestimates our dependence. We will only use significantly less if the economy tanks and the objective is to avoid that.

3) Their solutions on the supply side defy the geology of oil and the physics of energy.

[davidyson]

Thanks, Canuck, for the comprehensive reply!

It is reassuring in so far that the expert's credentials are just what they are.

Still I think Simmons and Leeb do have their own agendas - but so what? The facts are still the facts.

Simmons doesn't say so explicitly, but of course he might well have the two aims
- raise his expert profile by predicting something that all the other guys did not see first
- urge more transparent production and reserves accounting so that his business becomes less risky.

Cheers,

Davidyson

[Permanently_Baffled]

I think it is unlikely these guys are doing this for there own personal gains. I am hoping nievely that these people are raising this issue ahead of time so to allow for the time lag between the raising of an issue with governments and them acutally doing something about it.

This maybe wishful thinking though!...

PB

[Barbara]

The only one who has really something to gain is Simmons. Others are very important scientists which I don't think would risk their well known names on something stupid just to sell few dozens books or get an interview from some unknown magazine.
But Simmons... well: why not gain if you have a valid theory to sell? I mean, Peak Oil could be true and he is offering good advice to whom may be interested. I think it's fair.

[Whitecrab]

Being an investment banker, he would look rather foolish if he were not positioning himself to profit from this.

"You talk Simmons, but you don't put your money where your mouth is."

[Jack]

Let's look at the problem a bit differently.

Let's suppose that we wanted to profit from Peak Oil. How could we do it?

Well, we could buy a lot of futures contracts and start touting Peak Oil as something that would certainly hit immediately. Except, none of the experts seems to be doing that. And getting masses of people to speculate on oil this way isn't practical. And, third, the large hedgers would overwhelm the small speculators.

We could try to market some scheme that would purport to solve the problem and get money for it. None of them are doing that.

We could buy oil stocks and get people to buy those in a panic. These are very large companies with a variety of interests, so the profit that could be made seems fairly modest. Plus, the SEC gets testy about stock manipulation, so they'd be risking prison.

No doubt there are other methods. But at first glance, they seem to be what they purport to be - a group of people honestly reporting what they perceive to be a problem.

[AdamB]

Hi all,

I have thorougly studied the peak oil issue over the past four weeks (as thoroughly as possible in such a short time) and found it very credible.

Many people once did Davidson. Those calling it out in real time usually weren't allowed to stick around to explain why, but echo chambers are built that way for a reason. And nowadays, as you can see should you stop in and begin perusing topics again, you'll notice we talk about anything except peak oil. It happened some 6 years ago now...caused not much of significance since then except $1/bbl higher oil prices, so we talk about other stuff , usually not oil related. The 5 of us or so who are left anyway.

Come on back, and tell us why you think you got it so wrong, that is about the only real topic we have left peak oil wise. Except those who knew it was a crock 20 years ago, they were obviously right all along.

However, before hastening to massive changes in my life plan, I would like to look on the issue from all possible directions.

Smart play, especially considering how it was all a crock when you wrote this.

So, playing advocatus diabolo, I would like to ask: What might be (realistic) hidden agendas of the peak oil proponents that either bias their view or that might even give cause to the assumption that they do not believe in the effect at all?

Well, what if being ignorant of the basic precepts of the geosciences was all it took? No agenda, just suckers, not educated in a relatively small corner of the petroleum geology world?

Peak oil isn't an "effect", it is exactly what Hubbert laid out in words and math in his seminal 1956 work nothing more. In the production of any given non-renewable resource, the profile of that production begins and ends at zero...with one..or several...maxima along the way. It is basically simple logic. We can get all technical if you'd like on what it means, to produce a depletable natural resource, but it is irrefutable in its basic logic.

I am particularly puzzled by the bold statements by Matthew Simmons and Stephen Leeb, who might just want to point to a serious problem to help the world (which I assume), but who, as energy investment guys, might also or even only have different aims - speculation-related aims in particular.

As Mike Lynch once said...I'm paraphrasing.."who do you believe about oil production....accountants....or reservoir engineers?".

And what about the other experts: Does anyone know of any reasonable aspects that might cast doubt on the predictions from a "who is making these predictions" point of view?

Of course. Some of them even showed up here, within a year or two after you asked this question, but they were generally banned for speaking from a position of experience, and moderators at the time hated informed dissenting opinions when peak oil hysteria was building towards its own peak.

Mike Lynch for example. He had spent most of the 1990's debunking Colin Campbell's gibberish, he interacted here with folks, his username was "Spike" if memory serves. I don't believe he was banned...just stopped showing up when it became obvious that true believers aren't interested in dissenting opinions because they aren't in it because of the facts of the matter.

I am not trying to get any "smear", i would rather prefer facts.
Davidyson

Oh please, this place was never about facts, it was about a safe place for the church members to pray together and the priests could banish the nonbelievers for daring to know otherwise.