We are at the peak in world oil production...

It's the other way round. Remember your reference to EIA forecasts of U.S. production through 2040 as proof that shale oil will not peak in only a few years? The same report shows that U.S. shale oil will peak in 2020.

Now, it turns out that you did not even bother to look at the data carefully.

Actually, my points are very clear.

But what you are now sharing supports my arguments.

A bibliography of his works is shared here:

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/bibliography.htm

If you can point out the published work where he made the first forecast, please let me know.

Finally, I'm not referring to natural gas but to crude oil. To recap, he predicted a peak for U.S. crude oil production during the late '60s and early '70s, and crude oil production peaked in 1970.

For global crude oil production, he predicted in 1976 a peak after 1995 + 10 years, or 2005. (See the video clip shared earlier.)

The IEA confirmed this in 2010. (See the 2010 Outlook report.) The latest EIA data until October 2013 also confirms this. (See my first post in this thread.)

But my argument is about crude oil production and U.S. shale oil, not natural gas.

But the EIA conclusions which you mentioned refer to data which supports what I shared earlier. To recap, you referred to an EIA report which shows production increasing through 2040 to counter the claim that U.S. shale oil won't peak for a long time. But the same report shows U.S. shale oil peaking in 2020.

You also argued that the same report shows that crude oil has not peaked. But the first article that I shared and an EIA presentation shows that it did.

Again, the data comes from the EIA.

In 2006, the IEA argued that global crude oil production will not peak for many years in a Four Corners documentary.

In 2008, it analyzed oil fields, and then released a 2010 report showing that crude oil oil production peaked in 2006.

Now, data from the EIA until October 2013 shows that crude oil production peaked in 2005.

All of the evidence is given in my previous messages.

 

You referenced Hubbert's 1956 paper, he discussed, and the only estimate remotely close, was US oil production rates. As has been pointed out to you, his guesses from his 1938 and 1956 work were close only 1 in 5 times. The IDEA doesn't work very well, doesn't matter where members of your religion choose to apply it.

Does the Bible of your Church have any BETTER ideas, or do you just stick with ones that have failed before as a matter of faith, or because you cannot think for yourself?

 

Then may I recommend you rethink the quality of their conclusions based on at least the bad call for peak oil in 2006 from Fatih himself? And the EIA peak oil date for the world has been previously pegged at about 2037, globally. Depending on the validity of the high resource estimates, in which case there isn't even a peak, but a plateau stretching easily through 2040, for the US.

Again I ask, are you capable of independent thought or can you only parrot the work of others? Work you don't even have the intellectual capacity to compare and contrast to other work, that you might begin to glean even the minimum of understanding on this topic? Or does your church forbid learning, lest you ask too many questions and become less effective pimping bad ideas, or it interferes with your ability to locate the gullible for converts?

LATOC.

Why do you not understand that once an idea has been discredited, you do not validate it by repeating it? Do you not understand that IEA didn't even have access to the IHS EDIN database when they did this work? Do you even understand what that means?

I have been pointing out that the IEA has been claiming all sorts of things..as an example of the same sort of kick the can exercise that the peak oil religion has been playing since 1989 when Colin Campbell began the modern fear meme. People who can think for themselves are then required to ask the basic question, "of what use is yet another rinse and repeat cycle of the same bad idea". You apparently do not understand this basic quality control procedure, preferring instead to endless quote only conclusions from others that you aren't even familiar with. Otherwise you would know why a "survey" of oil fields is quite a bit different than stating "we used the EDIN database to do the following analysis....".

When someone only understands their own side of the issue, or in your case can only quote others with the intellectual capability to even draw a conclusion, it is a dead giveaway for those who, as Matt Savinar said about those using his website, are just religious psychos with daddy issues. You claimed it was a place you went to learn. What did you learn, how to nod appropriately from the pew when bad ideas were presented? How to cut and paste the conclusions of others when you, the disciple, don't have the intellectual horsepower to think?

 

Stop being a halfwit. Google is your friend, seeing as how you are a cut and paste specialist, you should at least know that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty

Uncertainty: The lack of certainty. A state of having limited knowledge where it is impossible to exactly describe the existing state, a future outcome, or more than one possible outcome.

It doesn't say anything like what you've just said. It is a state of things, it does not mean that other estimates even necessarily exist.

Incorrect. I understand them. You see, all you do is read headlines and then try and figure out how that headline might best advance your religious beliefs. I, on the other hand, try and validate the information within the reference, whether that means checking it against the EDIN database, which I do use, or the DI or IHS databases for domestic production information, or make a phone call, or whatever is necessary for quality control. Did you notice this article discussing the Monterey?

http://www.platts.com/latest-news/o...-production-expected-out-of-monterey-21657515

2nd paragraph from the bottom. Now try and think ralfy, when you combine this single piece of information with a single phone call to someone inside the EIA, you too could now understand what happened with the Monterey estimate.

Why is it your church, or you yourself, didn't make this connection, make the call, and discover what this means for the WHY the number changed?

I ask the people who write the reports you only pretend to understand the conclusions of, very specific questions. They attend conferences. For example, where you there when this work was released to the public?

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=3248#.U5sCtPldV8E

I was. How many people on the authorship list was I able to track down and talk to? How many did YOU track down and talk to?

While the ability to only read only digested information is undoubtedly a common skill taught to 2nd graders and peak oilers, a thorough analysis requires asking questions, particularly of those who also understand the information, and not just being a cut and paste, headline only specialist. Would you like to know how many children each of the top three authors on this report have?

I recommend you pay more attention to the science, and less to analysts, or worse yet advocacy groups like PCI, a reference contained within your earlier Monterey reference, assuming you even read it to know this.

They did. Most were counting on the world falling apart in 2008, after they claimed it was falling apart in 2005 and that didn't happen. LATOC imploded before the world did, did you learn anything from that? What did religious psychos and posters with daddy issues teach you then? What moron would ever think there was ANY learning there?

You've already got them. Please tell me you aren't so ignorant as to have missed them? I was rather obvious in my disdain for agencies making multiple, contradictory claims, and the lack of the ability to fund and use the best information available. Would you prefer I start bolding the comments to help out those who can't read as well as think? Are you a bot?

 

I didn't say anything about a PROOF....can you read? Do you understand the difference between using information as an example, or PROOF of something? The EIA makes estimates, has been doing it before you became a peak oil groupie. The EIA says BOTH things, that there will be a peak in the near future, or none at all through 2040. Are you a bot?

It isn't there. Amazing, that those of us familiar with his work know things that aren't even on his bio? But the question, is why don't you know this as well? Anyone, who knows ANYTHING about Hubbert, also knows his political affiliation. Is there a reason why none of his work, done for that affiliation, shows up on that bio?

Amazing that you know so little on this, the prophet of your religious beliefs.

Here is a hint...may I recommend the work of world class geoscientist Thomas Ahlbrandt? Certainly his experience in estimating resources rivals Hubbert, and is certainly far more substantial than anyone within the peak oil community...he mentioned the reference a year or two back....you were probably there, it was a conference in Tulsa, 2012 I believe.

Comes in handy to learn from real experts, they are paid to do this. Unlike cut and paste experts who have only been taught to recite dogma.

To recap, he called for the peak in US oil production by 1950, and half wits can't even do enough basic research to know this.

and Fatih claimed it already had in 2006.

They sound as conflicted on what happened as you do. So why aren't you cheerleading Duncan's work anymore? Would you like to explain to the class how much egg that left on your face when you were pimping it?

 

Is it really so hard? Simply compare the world graph with the US table. I'm sure you can do the math.

I see, solar and wind as compared with fossil fuel is "quite substantial." You read funny.
.

1+I/2 is 50% more than one. When you are shooting for a 100, "BUNCHES" has to be put in perspective.

No doubt you never use a word technically incorrectly which nevertheless in context has a meaning that is obvious. It amounts in fact to little more than a spelling error. But I guess some folks have to get their little victories where they can when the substantive issue eludes them.

Solar and wind were neither 9% in 1950 or 27% in 2013. Better get another calculator.

 

Again, I apologize, but there is no world graph. I can certainly hunt one up, but there is no guarantee it would represent the point the way you wish to make it.

"Substantial" is a relative term. I used it with respect to "they were once a little more than fossil fuels, now they are SUBSTANTIALLY more"…in this case, substantial is the change from 9% over and above fossil fuels to like 27%. I am forced to say, that does strike me as a substantial change here in the US.

Well, 100% is nice, but there is certainly no call for that to be the answer in any short term analysis. Certainly I agree that it is a good goal, but not required in the lifetime of anyone on this board, as one example of timeframe.

Oh, I certainly have, but you must understand, I am a real literal kind of guy to begin with, and it is my experience that if I am forced to guess at what someone means, IF they said it wrong (how am I even supposed to know, really?) then conversing on web forums would become nearly impossible.

Oh my NO. Just imagine what happens if I were to say, "look at all those world resources available!" and because of peak oil ignorance, I really meant "reserves". How is anyone supposed to KNOW I meant one, versus the other? They mean two completely different things, yet to the oil-ignorant they are synonymous. It isn't just a spelling error, because the person doing the writing could actually mean either, and both make sense. The oil-ignorant don't understand it, but if I had to GUESS every time one of those morons made this mistake I wouldn't ever be able to do anything else.

I didn't say they were. I said they were that much beyond the non-renewables. For example, if fossils were 100, and renewables were 9% beyond, the total would be something like 109. I calculated something similar for 2013 and got 27%. Give or take, but still, few would argue that this change isn't a substantial improvement.

 

Pay attention: my first post referred to crude oil production, not natural gas. The article I shared refers to EIA data until October 2013 showing crude oil production peaking at an average of 73.4 Mb/d since 2005. This was the conclusion made by the IEA in 2010 (not 2006).

In his 1956 report, Hubbert argued that global crude oil production would peak in 1995. In the 1976 interview, he stated that because of the recent oil shock, the peak will move to 1995 + 10 years, or 2005.

Finally, what is the point of referring to a forecast made in 1938 (and what is the title of that report?), when one should be looking at the most recent one made, which is in 1976?

 

Why? The IEA already rethought the issue and released a report with updated information in 2010?

Also, are you aware that the same IEA report gives a similar conclusion as that released by the EIA? What's the catch? I'll let you figure that out.

I am more than capable, but given what you've said so far, it seems that you are not. Would you like to question the EIA and IEA findings for oil peaking two to three decades from now, or do you accept their conclusions without question?

You've discredited none of my arguments! In fact, you validated all of them. The same EIA report you refer to supports what I said: crude oil has peaked, and shale oil will peak in 2020.

Unfortunately for you, the IEA 2010 report gives similar conclusions as the latest EIA report, which is no peak for total oil and gas for several decades.

Are you now questioning IEA conclusions?

Apparently, you did not even bother to read the 2010 report!

You referred to an EIA report which validated crude oil peaking and shale oil peaking in 2020. You question IEA conclusions even though they are similar to that of the EIA. You refer to a 1938 report which you cannot name. You keep referring to LATOC even though all of the data presented to you comes from the EIA and the IEA, and you support the first and question the second even though their conclusions about global total oil and gas peak are similar!

 

What you just shared supports my argument. We are looking at a set of possible outcomes, which is the point of uncertainty (see the same wiki entry you shared for details). If there are other estimates to consider (because they are part of the same set), then why are you focusing only on the high resource case?

Wasn't that a cut of an estimate of recoverable reserves? I am referring to points raised in these articles:

"How Much Oil Can California Produce? Much Less Than We Thought"

http://www.businessweek.com/article...e-oil-in-californias-monterey-shale-after-all

That is, the second paragraph, and

"EIA Cuts Monterey Shale Estimates on Extraction Challenges"

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...le-estimates-on-extraction-challenges-1-.html

That is, the second and third paragraphs.

You refer to the EIA 2014 report showing no peak for global oil and gas until 2040 to disprove the claim that U.S. shale oil will peak in 2020, and yet the same report proves the latter.

No, they differed in views. Some argued that total oil and gas production will continue rising, but will not meet demand, leading to higher prices. But low tolerance for high prices coupled with high capex will lead to complications.

You gave no counter-arguments. If any, you ended up validating all of my points. That is,

You argued that U.S. shale oil will not peak in 2020 because the EIA forecasts no peak in oil and gas for several decades. And yet the same EIA report forecasts that U.S. shale oil will peak in 2020.

You argued that crude oil production did not peak. But EIA data until October 2013 shows it did.

In addition, you argued that the IEA is wrong in its prediction for global oil and gas peak, but the IEA 2010 report has similar conclusions as the EIA, i.e., no peak until 2030, at least. Are you now concluding that the EIA forecast is also wrong?

Finally, you now argue that you do not support both the EIA and the IEA, even though you used the forecast of the first to prove your point and criticized the second even though it has a similar forecast as the first.

 

Here's the post where where you made that point:

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=237757&p=1063967611#post1063967611

You referred to "stable production" for tight oil and shale through 2040.

Here's my response, which contains a link an overview of the EIA report:

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=237757&p=1063969413#post1063969413

According to Fig. 11 and the third paragraph of the overview, tight oil declines after 2021.

Can you share the title of the 1938 report and the source?

The IEA made the claim in 2010:

"IEA acknowledges peak oil"

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2010-11-11/iea-acknowledges-peak-oil

In 2006, they were looking at other factors, such as political crises in oil-producing countries. See the Four Corners documentary on peak oil from 2006 for details.

That's because the conclusions were made after a 2008 survey. More details are given in this radio show:

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/peak-oil-just-around-the-corner/3010606

 

For God's sake I posted it on 441. Here it is again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#mediaviewer/File:World_energy_consumption.svg

Excuse me if I ignore the rest of your verbose silliness.

 

You pay attention. I have been discussing the accuracy of Hubbert's method to do ANYTHING..and showing that it DOESN'T. It doesn't matter whether it is a peak oiler or peak gasser using it, when it doesn't work, it doesn't work. Kapish?

Thank you for showing that Hubbert knew his method didn't work in an economic context, but you don't have to tell me the obvious, even if it wasn't obvious to Hubbert in 1956. And he DIDN'T explain his 1938 call for peak oil in the US before 1950 now did he? Do you see where I am going Jiggsy/Ralfy? Hubbert wasn't an economist, so his attempts at using economic eventsto shift what is presented by oil-ignorant peak oilers as a geologically based event invalidates not only Hubbert's method, bu folks like those at TOD who also missed this point.

Because it shows that the method itself doesn't work, and the guy who BUILT the method is the one didn't notice, and suckered the likes of you and Colin Campbell right in because you are PARROTS and can't be bothered to think about this, let alone do the research necessary on Hubbert's background to even find his other claims that didn't work out. If you HAD, maybe someone would have asked the obvious question, but you aren't even knowledgeable enough to have done the homework involved

 

I question everything. And then I show up and ask the folks who do the work questions. How many times have you tracked these folks down and asked them questions? How many questions have you ever asked Fatih? The USGS scientists who's work then forms the basis for EIA work? 1? 5? How many conferences did you watch them present their work at, and had them explain irregularities, methods and compromises made

You claim having learned from LATOC...what exactly did you learn among the religious psychos at LATOC?

I refer to LATOC because it is where you LEARNED. And what might have you have LEARNED at LATOC that wasn't a religious belief, rather than factual examination of the history of peak oilers, resource scarcity fear mongering half wits and such? The IEA and EIA have been making projections for quite some time, and they know they aren't designed to be perfect forecasts of the future. They tell you this when you TALK to them, and QUESTION them.

How many times have you called the EIA ralfy? How many times have you bumped into their folks when they are at the Williston Basin conference discussing the Bakken? How much have you LEARNED since LATOC ralfy, and how do you ever plan on showing it if you can only cut and paste the thoughts ad conclusions of others?

 

Already explained it to you ralfy. If you can't understand it, I recommend you get someone to read it back to you who isn't vested in your point as a religious belief.

I asked a simple question about a specific paragraph in a specific article ralfy. Why can't you be bothered to even read the question asked? Did LATOC teach you to avoid all questions because it might requiring learning something not allowed by the religion? Are you worried about being excommunicated?

 

Of course I can. Why would I? Your inability to do even the most basic of homework on the divine prophet of your religion just proves one of the core points I have been making, that your religious training is designed to help you pimp fear to the gullible.

And you do this without understanding Hubbert's political leanings, which are critical, you don't know the work he did in that arena, which includes his 1938 call, you ignore anything within his work, cherrypicking pieces to assemble your dogma of fear, and then people like you become a missionary looking for converts, sent out to other forums to try and get a few new converts. Why don't you go back to the those 3 web forums where they will accept your brand of ignorance, and be happy that the 20 or 30 regulars there appreciate your efforts in fronting their incompetence, because they don't know Hubbert was making 1938 claims on US peak oil by 1950 either.

Go back there, declare victory over the evil-doers in the web forums where you aren't protected by banning those who know more information about your topic than YOU do, and aren't required to cut and paste reports because they can think for themselves, and know how to pick up the phone and ask questions of the people involved.

Now run along like a good missionary, and sell your horse(*)(*)(*)(*) elsewhere.

 

No problem. Looks like renewables, that weren't growing much at all, have been accelerating pretty hard since 2005. Certainly a long way to go, but as long as you aren't showing peak oil back in 2005 like ralfy has been claiming, how are we ever going to get 100% in this century? Not that we need to, obviously with the amount of oil and natural gas still available I'm betting that even with an accelerating upward trend renewables are going to have a tough go of it within the century.

 

Not to mention coal. I read a Chinese energy projection to 2050 and even at that late date fossil fuel still ends up being the principal energy source. And they are supposed to be the cutting edge country when it comes to ramping up alternatives to fossil fuel, which includes in addition a major commitment to hydro and nuclear. My guess is if we are going to have a future it is going to include a major die-off period. One way or another energy demand is going to need to drop considerably.

 

Oh, die off scenarios are Happy McDoomster wet dreams, and not much else. A core piece of Malthusian half wits is the assumption that the future must be like the past, when obviously it never is. It isn't like lack of energy, in all its forms, will be the problem, that we have plenty of. And undoubtedly there will be (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing and whining as people are faced with eating less meat, or having panels on their house, or being forced to insulate more than they normally might. But it doesn't require a die off.

 

Yes more insulation will save us all. I don't know where you have your head stuck, but it isn't in reality.

 

Again, I didn't say that more insulation will save us all, I don't know that we need saved unless it is from those who can't read or think worth a damn, and then proceed to spin fanciful scenarios of doom and destruction unless we comply with what THEY want. While a wonderful intro to fascism, some of us don't have much tolerance for the tyranny of small minds.

 

Yes, the near consensus of climate scientists that we are moving toward a 6th extinction event is simply fascism. You too belong to the Rush Limbaugh school of politics. Ideology is everything. Facts and evidence don't count.

For those who want to tiptoe into the realm of reality they might want to check this out.

http://www.newsweek.com/earth-heading-another-mass-extinction-scientists-warn-252835

More trees, less people.

 

Again, I certainly didn't say that. If you wish to battle strawmen, just assemble them wholecloth, get yourself a sock puppet account, and have at it. You don't need me involved if you can't handle any points of view that don't fall into your preapproved categories.

Claims of extinction events ala Guy mcPherson are wonderfully interesting for ideologues looking for a rationale to force all humans into some compliance scheme or another. If humans choose to maintain some lifestyle that will ultimately kill them, it is a choice they are making, and it wouldn't be the only silly thing they do to themselves in the name of hedonism.

I'm not the ideologue. And what you call "facts and evidence" is irrelevant in the face of human CHOICES. If we, as a species, have decided to off ourselves, then I doubt there is any more you can do about it then stopping the average American diabetic from eating ice cream. Tilt at windmills all you'd like, assembling facts and evidence as you go, the path our species takes into the future will have much less to do with your "facts and evidence" than the value you seem to have assigned to them.

I'm all for it. Good luck with that, should those trees be needed for power generation. Or home construction. But show up on my property with idiot ideas on how YOU decide it is best for me to use it and my response will be as robust and as thoroughly uncomfortable for you as I can make it, because the tyranny of small minds inflicting their idiocy on others really does tick me off. And in my state at least, we are still allowed to defend ourselves against such nonsense.

 

Thanks for reinforcing my point tea party guy. Obviously everything intelligent is a conspiracy to take away your rights and property. You folks have become a cliche. Yes it's all ideology.

 

Obviously, as a registered independent I suppose I could take some kind of offense at that, but the speed at which you are just making stuff up now sort of belies the validity of your comments. Assigning political motivation to perfectly valid points only means that you cannot respond to valid points.

What is intelligent? Your desire to tilt at straw men or use unfounded accusations of political affiliation so you can avoid THINKING about something?