Royale wrote:This is what was meant, I didn't bother elaborating. 100 years from now is a ridiculously short time frame for billions of people to die. There's no need to scare monger when faced with something like that.
Atr0p0s wrote:Hey, John here. I'm 15 years old but relatively well educated when it comes to Peak Oil. I've read through most of the internet sources and some manuscripts of Peak Oil conferences and the likes. Ever since I heard about this about a month ago I've been preaching it to people, and I've become a firm believer in peak oil. But my views diverge from people who saybillions of people are going to die.
because such an outcome is not logical. We will not see the instant death of 90% of the world population. It will, instead, be a long slow decline that brings us down to the 1-2 billion people level say one hundred years from now. Other "scare mongers" also believe that there will be nuclear holocaust and widespread wars (www.aftertheoilcrash.net). Again I'd have to disagree. America will be involved in so many wars of attrition and occupation that it will be in no position to fight wars (not to mention the manifest increase in oil prices making it near impossible to field an international shock army.)
As much as I like to preach and debate ^^^ the sad fact is there's nothing I can do about it until I'm legally an adult. All I can do is try to walk or ride a bike a lot. And people tell me one person won't make a difference. Shows how active people are in trying to ameliorate things :\
We will not see the instant death of 90% of the world population. It will, instead, be a long slow decline that brings us down to the 1-2 billion people level say one hundred years from now. Other "scare mongers" also believe that there will be nuclear holocaust and widespread wars
Anyway small-scale farming will be the way I intend to get my family through. But on the other side there will still be docs, vets, lawyers, judges and snakeoil salesmen, but probably only the ones prepared to live in the 19th century.
Pops wrote:Hello all,
It seems to me that it is pretty obvious that any finite resource will have a mid point of availability. It isn’t a huge leap them to understand that the high point of discovery indicates the eventual high point of production. While economists can wax about “demand destruction” and “replacement technology” the difference is that this “commodity” is fundamental to our ENTIRE way of life, there is no replacement technology to this fantastically “dense” energy source and the few possibilities will take years and huge investments to even get close. Demand destruction in this case relates to the reduction of the world FOOD supply for kripe sakes!
Believe it or not, I didn’t come to “Peak Oil News” to debate (or rant) about the validity of peak oil, there are lots of sources of information and evidence available for those willing to read and decide for themselves. It is a very scary thing to get your head around, but here are our plans FWIW.
We are going the “Lone Farmer” route; relocating away from large populations, learning more agrarian skills, and preparing for the (hopefully) long slide. In the interim (5,10, ? years) I will continue working as a graphic designer, I can work anywhere there is dependable power and a satellite link to communicate with my rep back in town. This has been our plan for years for early/semi retirement, its just earlier than expected. We don’t look at it as a “bunker” so much as a “school” to teach our kids and grandkids (and ourselves) how our parents and grandparents got by without cheap oil.
We are “Ebaying” and yard-saling our late 20th century technology and replacing it with early 20th century technology; out with the electric guitar and in with the acoustic. Our small budget includes alternative power but also lots of “elbow grease” powered solutions.
I don’t believe there will be an oil “crash” soon, but there certainly could be an economic crash as the cost of oil and virtually everything else begins its inevitable rise. That is the wild card; how long do we have to prepare before the cost of preparing is out of reach or the necessities unavailable?
Pops
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Pops wrote:It seems to me that it is pretty obvious that any finite resource will have a mid point of availability. It isn’t a huge leap them to understand that the high point of discovery indicates the eventual high point of production.
Pops should have wrote:The extraction rate of a finite resource must begin at zero and end at zero with a maximum rate of flow somewhere between. Since extraction follows discovery, a plot of production roughly follows and resembles a plot of discovery shifted into the future some number of years.
Subjectivist wrote:Reading this thread made me wonder how Matt Savinar and Ken Deffeyes are doing these days? Do they regret the media attention they got around 2005 o do they wish hey were still in the spotlight now?
PO.com, Sixstrings, April 1,2011 wrote:Long story short.. it appears there was forum drama, a lot of it. Savinnar had a William Shatner moment and told all his fans to go get a life, that he wasn't going to be their "doom daddy" anymore. People kept bitching (maybe they should have let him win the argument) so he shut the forum down. Then he closed it for good and took up astrological readings.
pstarr wrote:Deffeyes is not a clown, you idiot. Deffeyes holds a B.S. in petroleum geology from the Colorado School of Mines and a Ph.D. in geology from Princeton University, studying under F.B. van Houten.
John_A wrote:
As of July, 2011 Deffeyes was still claiming peak oil still happened in 2005.
"2005 is still the year of greatest oil production. That makes me feel happy all the way down to the tips of my toes."
http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/curren ... -07-a.html
He stopped posting at his website soon thereafter. Things that make you go mmmmm.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghd5weu5Mpg
John_A wrote:World class geologist for certain. But uranium ain't oil and gas.
ralfy wrote:John_A wrote:
As of July, 2011 Deffeyes was still claiming peak oil still happened in 2005.
"2005 is still the year of greatest oil production. That makes me feel happy all the way down to the tips of my toes."
http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/curren ... -07-a.html
He stopped posting at his website soon thereafter. Things that make you go mmmmm.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghd5weu5Mpg
Confirmed by the IEA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK730U0Q4NU
The same can also be seen in BP data:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailycha ... onsumption
and the EIA (third chart):
http://crudeoilpeak.info/latest-graphs
I set up this model of global oil production probably in 1995, or so, and never changed its parameters. I have only updated the blue data curve, which is a superposition of the old historic data from a variety of sources and the EIA data. By a lucky coincidence, or the Central Limit Theorem, or both, the world production of crude oil and lease condensate has been quite predictable for the last 17 years or so.
I want to point out that there will be future small Hubbert curves for the new Iraqi oil, GOM oil, the Arctic oil, etc., but the fundamentals will not change, just as they are unchanged for the Norwegian sector of the North Sea shown in my earlier post. At the time scale of this chart, the global oil production plateau surely looks like a peak.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 80 guests