shortonsense wrote:If peak oil is no longer about a single peak, because we'll have these massive upswings in rates decades between peaks, for an unknown number of times, suddenly, any single peak is irrelevant and the entire question devolves back into the argument thread of either how long do we have to wait to know if the most current peak is THE peak, or how many more peaks can reasonably be expected to be out in front of us.
Peak oil (and other resources) is about the extraction profile of a finite resource. Assuming free access to that resource, the most abundant, cheapest, highest quality reserves are extracted first and, for a time, production can keep up with a growing demand. Eventually, it starts to become harder to keep up with growing demand as high quality reserves become more difficult to find, as reserves become depleted, and so on. Occasionally, a technological breakthrough or the odd large high quality discovery is made and production can rise again for a while but, the upswings become rarer and so come later in the decline curve. Consequently, later peaks become less and less likely to match earlier peaks. Geopolitical and other restraints muddy the production profile a lot.
Of course, you know all this but it's worth mentioning it again because it shows that the overall shape of the curve is important as it demonstrates the futility of relying on a particular resource (ultimately on any resource) for your societal wellbeing. Estimating the timing of that idealised peak is also important as it can give your society some breathing space to make changes, if that peak is recognised. If all you do is try harder to get another peak going, then the resource is wasted on BAU instead of change to cope with the inevitable.
Peak is not irrelevant if there are multiple peaks. However, if you think it is, then, again, why are you here on this forum?
