Page 10 of 10

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postPosted: Wed 17 Mar 2021, 17:53:41
by AdamB
DesuMaiden wrote:@AdamB I am 100% certain you are a shill.


You said that before. It isn't any more true than your claims of how much oil there is in the ground.

DesuMaiden wrote: I am not going to debate with you anymore because you keep on lying to hide and deny the facts that I present.


We've discussed this already. You have made claims, not presented facts.

DesuMaiden wrote:
Btw, that article you showed me is more disinformation. It only shows that the usa exports more oil than it used to, but it doesn't refute the fact that usa is still a net importer of oil.


Learn to read better. And understand what the US does with the oil it imports. You get extra oil credibility points if you know the history of why we import all that oil...only to export the finished products. A hint...the word you are looking for is "refineries".

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postPosted: Wed 17 Mar 2021, 19:45:46
by OutcastPhilosopher
AdamB wrote:
DesuMaiden wrote:@AdamB I am 100% certain you are a shill.


You said that before. It isn't any more true than your claims of how much oil there is in the ground.

DesuMaiden wrote: I am not going to debate with you anymore because you keep on lying to hide and deny the facts that I present.


We've discussed this already. You have made claims, not presented facts.

DesuMaiden wrote:
Btw, that article you showed me is more disinformation. It only shows that the usa exports more oil than it used to, but it doesn't refute the fact that usa is still a net importer of oil.


Learn to read better. And understand what the US does with the oil it imports. You get extra oil credibility points if you know the history of why we import all that oil...only to export the finished products. A hint...the word you are looking for is "refineries".



Adam, what oil company do or did you work for?

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postPosted: Wed 17 Mar 2021, 20:06:59
by AdamB
OutcastPhilosopher wrote:Adam, what oil company do or did you work for?


Oh now OP, you should know better than that. :)

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postPosted: Wed 17 Mar 2021, 20:11:46
by OutcastPhilosopher
AdamB wrote:
OutcastPhilosopher wrote:Adam, what oil company do or did you work for?


Oh now OP, you should know better than that. :)



Pure shill everybody. This board and many others are infested.

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postPosted: Wed 17 Mar 2021, 20:23:37
by AdamB
OutcastPhilosopher wrote:
AdamB wrote:
OutcastPhilosopher wrote:Adam, what oil company do or did you work for?


Oh now OP, you should know better than that. :)


Pure shill everybody. This board and many others are infested.


Says the conspiracy nutter....

Do you check under your bed at night to make sure there aren't any golems hidden there?

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postPosted: Mon 12 Apr 2021, 16:58:26
by DesuMaiden
At this point, collapse is inevitable. It is not a matter of it if it happens but a matter of when. While I cannot pinpoint an exact date for the collapse of global industrial civilization, this collapse will probably happen sometime in the near future. And no, it won't be a slow decline because our current civilization is just a cumulation of all of the other unsolved problems of all of the previous civilizations (like the Roman, Chinese and Arab civilizations of Antiquity and the Middle Ages). Except we managed to deplete all of the nonrenewable resources that previous civilizations depended on (like various metalliac ores) in addition to new novel resources (like fossil fuels). We have run out of resources to consume. Therefore, we are going extinct. It is that simple.

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postPosted: Mon 12 Apr 2021, 17:51:29
by Armageddon
What’s going to happen when US shale production crashes and we are back under 8 mbpd?

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postPosted: Mon 12 Apr 2021, 18:21:32
by AdamB
DesuMaiden wrote:At this point, collapse is inevitable.


Not "at this point". Since about the time that rapacious greed and consumerism took hold, that would probably be the point where collapse became inevitable.

DesuMaiden wrote: It is not a matter of it if it happens but a matter of when. While I cannot pinpoint an exact date for the collapse of global industrial civilization, this collapse will probably happen sometime in the near future.


"near future" being claimed since shortly after rapacious greed, consumerism, and doomers all arrived on scene. Call it somewhere around the time of Malthus? Jim Jones being a more recent example, and was pitching the same stuff, as were folks on this website near 15 years ago.

DesuMaiden wrote: We have run out of resources to consume. Therefore, we are going extinct. It is that simple.


Yeah, that was the excuse claimed 15 years ago. And still...here...we...are!! Isn't it great when "near future" can just keep changing and growing as the looney tunes contingent sees fit? :-D

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postPosted: Mon 12 Apr 2021, 19:01:52
by DesuMaiden
AdamB wrote:
DesuMaiden wrote:At this point, collapse is inevitable.


Not "at this point". Since about the time that rapacious greed and consumerism took hold, that would probably be the point where collapse became inevitable.

DesuMaiden wrote: It is not a matter of it if it happens but a matter of when. While I cannot pinpoint an exact date for the collapse of global industrial civilization, this collapse will probably happen sometime in the near future.


"near future" being claimed since shortly after rapacious greed, consumerism, and doomers all arrived on scene. Call it somewhere around the time of Malthus? Jim Jones being a more recent example, and was pitching the same stuff, as were folks on this website near 15 years ago.

DesuMaiden wrote: We have run out of resources to consume. Therefore, we are going extinct. It is that simple.


Yeah, that was the excuse claimed 15 years ago. And still...here...we...are!! Isn't it great when "near future" can just keep changing and growing as the looney tunes contingent sees fit? :-D

Yes, I am well aware of the rapacious greed of human civilization. But what solution do you offer to mitigate it? This socio-economic system is literally a pyramid-scheme designed to cater to that rapacious greed. So unless you change the way our economy works, nothing will change.

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postPosted: Mon 12 Apr 2021, 22:43:59
by AdamB
DesuMaiden wrote:
AdamB wrote:
DesuMaiden wrote: It is not a matter of it if it happens but a matter of when. While I cannot pinpoint an exact date for the collapse of global industrial civilization, this collapse will probably happen sometime in the near future.


"near future" being claimed since shortly after rapacious greed, consumerism, and doomers all arrived on scene. Call it somewhere around the time of Malthus? Jim Jones being a more recent example, and was pitching the same stuff, as were folks on this website near 15 years ago.


Yes, I am well aware of the rapacious greed of human civilization. But what solution do you offer to mitigate it?


The world becomes Amish. Or else.

DesuMaiden wrote:This socio-economic system is literally a pyramid-scheme designed to cater to that rapacious greed. So unless you change the way our economy works, nothing will change.


Good thing it is at least resilient then, for those of us still in it.

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postPosted: Tue 13 Apr 2021, 19:21:57
by Peak_Yeast
Unless one is totally blind it is pretty obvious that many constraints are becoming increasingly tight and desperation is starting to show in many places.

LTG and Albert Bartlett has even mentioned it several times: A doubling of resources is not a solution and the extra time is quickly gone. So just because the timing is slightly off doesnt invalidate the trend in any way - actually being "on time" would be quite a feat giving the complexity and even strange.

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postPosted: Wed 14 Apr 2021, 10:28:35
by Outcast_Searcher
Peak_Yeast wrote:Unless one is totally blind it is pretty obvious that many constraints are becoming increasingly tight and desperation is starting to show in many places.

LTG and Albert Bartlett has even mentioned it several times: A doubling of resources is not a solution and the extra time is quickly gone. So just because the timing is slightly off doesnt invalidate the trend in any way - actually being "on time" would be quite a feat giving the complexity and even strange.

And yet, except for empty emoting, you've said NOTHING re actual facts, citations, etc. invalidating the idea of a slow crash vs. a fast crash.

Claiming it doesn't matter how many decades (could it be dozens, hundreds, thousands?) the fast crash doomers are off doesn't make them AT ALL right.

They're wrong quite a few decades now, and counting.

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postPosted: Wed 14 Apr 2021, 11:02:03
by Pops
I love these old reminiscing threads. Back in 2011 I reminisced:
But in '04 my WAG was actual, physical peak between '12 & '15 with the plateau undulating from then till inexorable physical decline maybe in 2020 or maybe '25? So I'm still surprised to know we were already on the top in 2004!


So to review, conventional has been flat since '04—you know what "conventional" is, the 90% of production that enables all the rest? LTO gave us a surprise 10 years of happy motoring and renewables development. But it also gave the US time to (caused us to?) triple debt/GDP: from about 30% to over 100% (60 to 120% globally), gave the top 20% more time for trickle-up, they now own more wealth than the bottom 50% (the top 20% the only group to have gained since the recession) which (I think) has led to a derailing of politics into a universe of alternative facts, manufactured outrage, tribalism, and the point of it all: tax cuts.

So just that short synopsis would seem to be everything a peaker from '04 (this one anyway) would expect—save LTO. If the plateau in conventional (remember the 90% of production) were a typical delayed reaction to increased demand and too little investment in the '90s, we would have seen conventional increase maybe 6 or 7 years after, so maybe 2010 at the latest. Didn't happen. Instead we abandoned the search for the next big gusher and the went straight to the dregs, tar, LTO, offshore, etc.

So tick the boxes of doom with me:
__ peak conventional
__ peak growth (ALL growth has been from new debt since '08 —see the chart)
__ peak democracy (over 50% believe it overrated)
__ facebook

Image

Resilience is the ability of a society to weather setbacks and disasters. Borrowing money is one way to pay for repairs, but you can't borrow money to give to rich people when things are good and also borrow to repair the damage when things are bad and then borrow more to fix the things you should have fixed 20 years ago and already paid off.

I have no guess if and when the bubble pops. If renewables can surge we have a chance. But if we dilly-dalley around waiting on fracking and demand destruction until conventional begins to decline we may bite the dust. I'll just stick with my original thought that oil production declines begins this decade. Not fracking necessarily, I don't know if it will ever make up the losses from last year or not, but regardless, it is conventional production that costs $10-$20/bbl that underpins the whole mess. It didn't respond to 5 years of the highest prices ever 10 years ago so it doesn't seem likely to now.

This was always one of my favorite charts and it is evergreen. The difference between peak in 2016 and 2023 is 500GB — 500 thousand million barrels! And that is with a nice smooth curve, no overshoot pulling "tomorrow's" oil forward. Of course you can get any guess you want as far as URR goes, but again, it is the rate that counts and conventional extraction rate has proven that it can not grow much if at all.

Image

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postPosted: Wed 14 Apr 2021, 11:05:47
by AdamB
Peak_Yeast wrote:Unless one is totally blind it is pretty obvious that many constraints are becoming increasingly tight and desperation is starting to show in many places.


The same claim was made for peak oil 15+ years ago now. Desperation showing and collapse arriving aren't the same thing. There isn't even a requirement that your "desperation" (lack of gummy bears at the grocery?) even be mine.

Peak_Yeast wrote:LTG and Albert Bartlett has even mentioned it several times: A doubling of resources is not a solution and the extra time is quickly gone. So just because the timing is slightly off doesnt invalidate the trend in any way - actually being "on time" would be quite a feat giving the complexity and even strange.


LTG said we should have run out of oil, natural gas, aluminum, etc etc, years ago. And no, folks don't mention that much in their rush to present the results as logical, when the underpinnings are not. Roscoe wanted to pretend that increases in oil production were exponential. They are not. Talk about a strawman underpinning to peak oil theory, right?

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postPosted: Wed 28 Apr 2021, 17:02:05
by DesuMaiden
The shills keep on shilling. So that they can continue lying to the public that business as usual can continue indefinitely.

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postPosted: Wed 28 Apr 2021, 18:22:28
by Peak_Yeast
AdamB wrote:LTG said we should have run out of oil, natural gas, aluminum, etc etc, years ago. And no, folks don't mention that much in their rush to present the results as logical, when the underpinnings are not. Roscoe wanted to pretend that increases in oil production were exponential. They are not. Talk about a strawman underpinning to peak oil theory, right?


No they did not say that. It is obvious that you never bothered to actually read LTG. Nor the updates. But it is good to know the quality of your "knowledge" about LTG which is to say: None

There has been increasing desperation for a long time. It does not mean its not there just because you are used to it. There is a possibility of sudden collapses at any point in time and until discontinuities happen the degradation will look slow.

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postPosted: Wed 28 Apr 2021, 23:20:00
by AdamB
Peak_Yeast wrote:
AdamB wrote:LTG said we should have run out of oil, natural gas, aluminum, etc etc, years ago. And no, folks don't mention that much in their rush to present the results as logical, when the underpinnings are not. Roscoe wanted to pretend that increases in oil production were exponential. They are not. Talk about a strawman underpinning to peak oil theory, right?


No they did not say that.


I can find you the page number, if you'd like? They listed the amount of remaining resources, and I admit I only checked a few important ones (oil, gas, aluminum) a ways back, but you compare that number to what we have used, and presto! Math demonstrates that according to them, we've used all the oil, gas and aluminum that they thought existed back then. Years ago in some cases.

So please, go look it up yourself before calling me a liar when I've already done the work. You'll just look ignorant if you make me go round up my copy and give the page numbers for the table.

Peak_Yeast wrote: It is obvious that you never bothered to actually read LTG. Nor the updates. But it is good to know the quality of your "knowledge" about LTG which is to say: None


A bet perhaps? If I can find a single resource that they claimed was as much as the world had, and provide the cumulative production of that resource at a higher level through today, you'll admit that some of us have researched this, and fools like you pretend we didn't because you couldn't take the time yourself, or don't know how to add?