DrumBeat: January 27, 2007
Posted by Leanan on January 27, 2007 - 10:14am
Is oil-rich Mexico spending too much?
The country saves little of its petroleum riches and spends lavishly on vanity projects. Analysts fear a day of reckoning as crude output falls.
Tank tracker Lloyds Marine Intelligence Unit said Friday that oil exports from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries fell to less than 23 million barrels a day in December from just under 24 million barrels a day in November, according to a Dow Jones newswire report.Saudi Arabia, the world's largest crude oil producer and exporter, was the quickest to implement OPEC's production cuts; its exports in December were 1.1 million barrels a day lower than before the OPEC's October call for production cuts.
Nashville's Urban Development Policy Revealed: Out With the Old?
OK, the tourist thing—I have strong doubts about the long-term viability of tourism as a revenue source. I think that over the next ten or twenty years, it's going to get harder for people to move around, because the infrastructure is going to go downhill. We will see higher fuel prices, poorer roads, no money to develop large-scale public transportation—and fewer people will have the financial means to undertake travel of any sort—including business travel. The backers of this hotel are also backers of a new, larger convention center here in town, a project which I think is also sadly misguided. Nobody wants to look at the long-term trends, because they're so scary. It is not going to be business as usual any more, people, and it's time to drop the denial and get ready for a future that's going to be local and hands-on rather than global and high-tech.
Preparing for Peak Oil - local TV coverage (streaming video) from Madison, Wisconsin.
It's been less than a year since the world was nearly as awash in writings about "peak oil" as it is in crude oil itself. The psychology of the moment was so twisted that, for example, the op-ed page of the New York Times ran a 2,850-word piece titled "The End of Oil" (March 2006). It argued, among other things, that while the world's crude supplies may be more than half gone, not enough was being said about peak oil.Still, a bogus argument will always seems less so in the ears & eyes of an audience that's predisposed to believe it: oversimplification, misstatement, and ignoring the inconvenient (for starters) create nodding heads instead of furrowed brows.
Peak Oil Passnotes: Oil at $35? It's Being Said
The oil market has been shaken recently. The break down to $49.90 intraday two weeks ago was a new step after eighteen months of a $55 floor price. And on the way, what has become of the notion of ‘peak oil’? One guy I know who has been relatively at ease with the idea, who supports the idea, found himself questioning it recently. It was a surprise.
Canadian Cure for the Middle East Blues
Perhaps the most critical aspect of curbing our appetite for oil is decreasing our dependence on the Middle East. But if we are ever going to get serious about it the question then becomes, where will we make up the shortfall? The answer may lie with our neighbor to the north.
US Senators Push for Full Review of OCS Oil, Gas Resources
Some U.S. senators, realizing their plans for a new Outer Continental Shelf, or OCS, drilling bill are unlikely to succeed in a Democratic-controlled Congress, are now pushing for a more thorough review of OCS oil and gas resources.
The Merkel formula assumes that global growth will continue despite her proposed cut in emissions, so she is relying on technology change. She did not spell out the extent of emission curbs or the technologies she favours.
New life for US nuclear power plants
The US nuclear power industry is planning for a renaissance, drawing up its first applications to build nuclear plants since the 1970s.
One family unplugs from technology and lives off the land. Even the blender is pedal-powered.
Proton Power says first fuel-cell powered ship to sail in 2008
Proton Power Systems, a German developer of hydrogen fuel-cell technology, said it expects the world's first fuel-cell powered ship to operate from the middle of 2008.
Lester Brown - Davos Notes: Considering the Real Costs of Our Energy Economy
Carnegie Mellon engineers devise new process to improve energy efficiency of ethanol production
The key to the Carnegie Mellon strategy involves redesigning the distillation process by using a multi-column system together with a network for energy recovery that ultimately reduces the consumption of steam, a major energy component in the production of corn-based ethanol.
Bush's Dangerous Energy Proposal
Some critics are skeptical of the president's proposal to rely largely on ethanol to reduce gasoline consumption by 20 percent in a decade. Indeed, this could do more harm than good, says David Victor, director of Stanford University's Program on Energy and Sustainable Development.
Farmers can profit from biofuel growth,says European Commission president
Biofuels expansion seen raising risk of famine
Switching more land from food to biofuel production raises the risk of future famines, a conference organised by the Soil Association, the country's leading organic certification body, was told.
NTR chief warns of ‘dysfunctional consequences’ in rush to green energy
There was a risk of “dysfunctional consequences, such as rainforests being burned in South America and south-east Asia to make way for plantations to provide food oil for European biofuels,” he said.
Organic body tackles food miles
The Soil Association standard’s board has announced it will consult on a range of options to tackle the environmental impact of airfreighting organic food.
Academic predicts rising oil prices will prompt a local food renaissance
A renaissance in local food for local communities is coming and the UK will need a huge increase in the agricultural workforce to deliver it.Speaking at the Soil Association Conference in Cardiff, on 26 January, American author Richard Heinberg said the peak oil theory where production plateaus and prices sky rocket could force dramatic changes on UK and world farming.
Drilling must be part of the energy solution
The plain truth is that we can't conserve our way out of the energy crisis. The costs would cripple the economy. Everyone likes alternative energy; the trouble is, solar power and biofuels have been promoted for decades, and they still only account for a small percentage of the nation's consumption.
New Report Challenges Blair's Views on Iran
Iran holds the world's largest supplies of oil after Saudi Arabia and Iraq, and holds more oil and gas combined than any other country on the planet. As Peak Oil rapidly approaches, the US demand to control the lion's share of what is left. Iran has also just shifted its petrodollars into a Euro-based bourse. The effect on the value of the dollar will be significant.
Shell Still Eyes Russian Invest Despite Debacle - CEO
Anglo-Dutch oil major Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RSDA.LN) intends to continue searching for new investment opportunities in Russia despite recent problems with the Russian government over the management of its Sakhalin-II oil and gas project, Shell's Chief Executive Jeroen Van de Veer said Friday.
Trashing Peak Oil - Garbage will save us.
TXU lobbying Congress on coal-plant plan
TXU Corp., facing a string of global-warming bills, is ramping up efforts to lobby the new Congress over its controversial plans to build coal-fired power plants across Texas.
Green energy: Lots of choice, lots of risk
There is a slew of small -- and some not so small -- public companies trading on Canadian exchanges that are involved in the alternative energy game. They're in sectors as far reaching as hydro and wind power, geothermal power, solar energy, tidal and wave power and biofuels. There's even a tiny firm, Peat Resources Ltd., listed on the TSX Venture Exchange that is trying to make money producing and marketing peat as fuel.But investing in these companies is not for the faint of heart. Because of technological uncertainty, fickle government support programs, and an uncertain energy future, most are clearly for risk-taking investors who want to gamble on the chance for big gains in the future.
MIT had organized a dinner featuring three of its scientists and their alternative energy technologies, and you knew it was a hot ticket when you walked in the door. The grotto held only about 60 people beneath its vaulted stone ceiling, but among them were venture capitalists John Doerr and Vinod Khosla, Google co-founder Larry Page, and the shaggy, newly minted YouTube billionaire Chad Hurley. First Tom Friedman, the New York Times columnist with a gift for the marketing of ideas, riffed about the coming clean-energy revolution." Green is the new red, white and blue," he said, "and this is not your parents' energy crisis." Once he'd warmed up the crowd, the MIT scientists took turns presenting their visions of the future.
Biofuel trade disadvantages poor nations
A combination of rich nation import controls and excessive pricing power among too few western importers is disadvantaging biofuels producers in developing countries, a London-based research institute said.
Brazil Eyes Ethanol Export Boom after Bush Speech
Ethanol producers in Brazil, the world's biggest and cheapest exporter of the alternative fuel, see a fantastic business opportunity in US President Bush's aim to cut his country's gasoline use by 20 percent over a decade.
Russia's OAO Gazprom sought to assure jittery Europeans on Friday that new deals for the sale of natural gas to Belarus and Ukraine would prevent any more disruptions to western Europe.But EU Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs said the continent should steel itself for future disruptions regardless.
Nigeria: Fuel Scarcity is Killing the Economy, Labour Laments
The protracted fuel scarcity in the country is pushing Nigeria into zero-productivity and zero growth thereby making the nation to sink deeper into underdevelopment, the National Union of Textile, Garment and Tailoring Workers of Nigeria (NUTGTWN), has warned.
Prince Charles on anti-global warming trip to US
Charles and his wife Camilla took a British Airways flight for Philadelphia, with the couple and their staff using all the first class and some business class seats, the Press Association news agency said Friday.The couple were traveling aboard a commercial flight after Clarence House announced sweeping changes to the royal household's travel plans as part of the fight against global warming.
Landowners plant trees to consume gases
Some landowners in the Pacific Northwest are planting new forests of trees to consume greenhouse gases and potentially buffer climate change, in a business called carbon forestry.
We're ruining Earth, scientists warn
Droughts will be longer, flooding rains will be rarer but heavier. Cyclones will hit harder. Violent storms and extreme heatwaves will strike more frequently. Evaporation will suck up scarce inland water. Sea levels will creep up half a metre. Oceans will be so acidic that in some places shells and reefs will dissolve.And humanity, not nature, will be to blame.
Parent demands "alternative theories" of global warming be taught in school
"No you will not teach or show that propagandist Al Gore video to my child, blaming our nation -- the greatest nation ever to exist on this planet -- for global warming," Hardison wrote in an e-mail to the Federal Way School Board.The 43-year-old computer consultant is an evangelical Christian who says he believes that a warming planet is "one of the signs" of Jesus Christ's imminent return for Judgment Day.
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Has anyone reworked a graph of the all liquids based on a BTU basis yet?
WSJ: Mexico’s Oil Output Cools
Slowing of Major Field May Pressure Prices, U.S. Import Diversity
By David Luhnow, 1/27/07
The WSJ article is an update to one they did about a year ago, predicting a crash in Cantarell's production, based on leaked internal reports.
BTW, based on this article (and the previous NPR interview), it looks like Shields is predicting (at least) a net decline in Mexican production of 400,000 bpd from 12/06 to 12/07, and then another drop of 400,000 bpd from 12/07 to 12/08. Based on the NPR interview, I had been characterizing it as a 800,000 bpd drop from 2007 to 2008.
In any case, this would be a net decline of about 1.2 mbpd over a three year period (12/05 to 12/08), which would be an annual net decline rate of 15% per year. Note that if we use average annual values, we will get a lower annual decline rate, but IMO where we have declining (especially rapidly declining) production, month to month comparisons give us a better prediction of production for a given future month.
Unless Mexico drastically curtails their domestic consumption, at the projected decline rate, Mexico will effectively cease to be a net oil exporter by the end of 2008, just in time for the US presidential elections. I wonder how well efforts to curtail domestic oil consumption, in order to ship oil to the north, will go over in Mexico?
As Fireangel pointed out yesterday, there are media reports out suggesting that Saudi Arabia's crude + condensate production may have already fallen below 8 mbpd in December.
We do know that Saudi Arabia and Mexico are unilaterally curtailing crude oil shipments to refiners (below what the refiners want to buy).
FYI--exactly one year ago today I warned of a rapidly developing net oil export crisis: http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/1/27/14471/5832
Good story Jeffery. Well Good is a relative word here.
Mexico production has not declined that much from the start of the the year. So they have been able to compensate. However the decline is significant in terms of exports. You have made everyone an expert in considering exports rather than just total production. I know I just thought about total oil production before I read your posts.
In December of 2005 Mexico produced 3,388,000 barrels of oil per day, C+C. In December of 2006 Mexico produced 2,978,000 barrels of oil per day, C+C. That is a drop, December to December of 410,000 barrels per day.
You are probably looking at the average for 2005 verses 2006. They had hurricane Emily, plus platforms were abandoned for Katrina, Rita and Wilma for a short time. This caused the 2005 average to be quite lower than normal. That plus the fact that Mexican production decline has accellerated in the last three months. They have dropped 280,000 barrels per day in only the last three months. I would cause that very significant.
Ron Patterson
Hmmm...even though I've sworn off predictions as of late...I'm going to put my toe back in the water for this little prediction.
I am not 100% sure that we have passed world peak on C+C, we may know for sure in a year or two.
I am pretty sure that 2007 will be the year of "Peak Oil Awareness" in the general public and not just pockets of interested groups and communities. The "spillover" is ripe and there are more and more receptive ears even though gasoline prices are lower.
The public knows that something is not on the level with the war in Iraq and the threats to Iran from our President. They are starting to put the dots together.
Just a hunch.
Dragonfly,
"I am pretty sure that 2007 will be the year of "Peak Oil Awareness"
IMO it will not have to be a reduction in imports, climbing gas prices at the pumps, or any of the other that will be the cause for hysteria and resulting chaos.
It will simply have to be the acceptance by the public that WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF OIL.
Once that sinks into JoeSixPack's brainpan then he will become hysterical and start hoarding. All the rest will do likewise.
We will rapidly circle the drain as Amurkans realize that what they have been hearing is suddenly going to happen.
I believe this because over 30 yrs ago I was out and about when the oil embargo was put in place and what I witnessed then will be multiplied many many times over.
It will begin to feed on itself fanned by the MSM and their blowdried reports earnestly leaning into the camera and speaking of doom and armegeddon. The public like all good sheeple will respond. Where it goes from there is an unknown.
Once you see violence, chaos and other events up close you never forget just how little it takes to set one off.
Putting the dots together..yes...but only until the MSM goes nutso will the people believe anything. Thats the way they are now wired.
Those yelling doomer at me weren't here during WWII or Pearl Harbor or the backside of the depression and most likely have no recollection of 1973.
Recognition of Peak Oil could be delayed by an economic recession. Demand can drop faster than production if the economy sinks. This would totally cloud the issue. It is bad news either way. I keep wondering which TPTB would prefer. It kind of looks like they would prefer to keep the economy humming as fast as energy production allows. Damn the consequences. The choice over the last decade is obvious now. TPTB wanted economic growth over everything else. Eventually growth bumps into limits to growth. Peak Energy and environmental destruction are here.
The reign of King Dumbo has been a complete failure for those who dream of peace and environmental sanity.
Continuous recessions, followed by short revivals are the only serious scenarios about how PO will play out economically. One would be a fool to think that oil can get to $200 or even $100 and stay there without the this breaking the back of the economy along.
Those periods should continue until we complete our transition to an oil-free economy. Of course economic scenarious can not predict resource wars or the amount of suffering of the world's poor... economics usually shies away from such "externalities".
Hi Oaksmoke,
Thanks. Yes. "Recognition of Peak Oil could be delayed by an economic recession."
And, in addition, as someone may have already suggested, it's even possible we'll see on-going economic upheaval, without any general understanding of the underlying reasons.
>Once that sinks into JoeSixPack's brainpan then he will become hysterical and start hoarding. All the rest will do likewise.
I wouldn't be so certain of this. For one, I suspect the majority of public still believes that we can use technology to replace oil. The media, gov't and so called "experts" will flood the airwaves that a tech. solution is just a year or two away. So instead of hoarding or making any prepations they'll go on about their daily lives. Plus Joe Six pack is up to his eyeballs in debt and can't afford to hoard anything, except hoarding even more debt.
>I believe this because over 30 yrs ago I was out and about when the oil embargo was put in place and what I witnessed then will be multiplied many many times over.
For this to begin there would need to be shortages. I suspect that this time oil prices will rise resulting in decreased consumption rather than like sudden shortages during the 1970s. The only what I see this re-ocuring is when exporters begin to husband remaining reserves or if war breaks out in the middle east that disrupts exports. Not to say that these events won't occur, but I just don't see an crisis begining because of US public exceptance of PO. Hell, Most americans believe that the Oil companies have been suppressing technology that could replace oil. Another words, a crisis will orignate overseas do to a severe decline in exports, not because of US public sentiment.
Tin foil hat time...
Can anyone else see a line between the Cantarell crash and this Halliburton Press release?
I've been beating this drum for a while. Here's how I see it playing out, in an article I've posted in various places on the net:
Does anyone know where these detentions camps will be located?
I don't know how reliable the information is, but this site gives a list and a map. They seem to be mostly in the south, with the highest concentration (pun unintended) in Texas.
http://www.geocities.com/theawakeningnews/Police_State-Concentration_Cam...
I don't know how reliable the information is, but this site gives a list and a map. They seem to be mostly in the south, with the highest concentration (pun unintended) in Texas.
We have plenty of current inventory down here, and we should be able to keep these facilities full at the rate they countinue to pour in the country. I've lived in Central Texas most of my life, and can vouch that during the last 5 years the area has been completely transformed.
The map certainly has a lot of concentration camps. If there were that many, it would seem like employees involved with them would start leaking out the word.
Alternatively, if they exist at this time, they may not be staffed. Finding staff would seem like it would be tricky - unless Halliburton does it all.
Hi Gail,
A current detention facility (non-profit?)
http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/factsheets/huttodetentionfac.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/26/AR200701...
A Culinary and Cultural Staple in Crisis
Mexico Grapples With Soaring Prices for Corn -- and Tortillas
By Manuel Roig-Franzia
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, January 27, 2007; A01
Good find.
The Economist a few days back very rapidly dismissed the ethanol-white corn connection. So rapidly that I became suspicious that they had done zero real homework on the issue.
We definitely need more info on this. This begs as many questions as it answers.
Asebius,
Unless the white corn fetches the same price as the yellow(lower for white) this I would assume the wise farmer would fill his planter hoppers with yellow corn next year.
Simple market economics I suppose. We use plenty of white corn for ourselves so I think both prices will be in lockstep.
Since we raise none in my area, popcorn yes, then I can't get a good read on what the locals may do. Barring that I think they will go with the good prices.
Already plenty of winter wheat is in the ground due to the wheat runup last year however they might even rip that out and plant corn if wheat looks to be a loser. I have seen them do that before.
Mexico is going to be a handy barometer for us up north to see which way the cat is swinging on the line. Will it land on its feet? My childhood tests on the farm from throwing cats out the hayloft proved you can't tell precisely.
Sheesh.
Let the games of bait and delude begin.
Follow the yellow-caked road.
Airdale,
You wrote:
For sure. Even if world peak is down the road, Mexico's peak will provide a taste of the future.
BTW, Mexico has it's own migration problem with desperate folks crossing it's southern border in large numbers wanting access to the US.
In tomorrow's NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/world/americas/28mexico.html?ex=157680...
Typically white corn is priced at a premium to yellow corn because it yields less. Farmers have to be compensated for the lower yield with higher prices in order to be incented to plant the white corn. (Premiums used to be at least 25% I'm not currently knowledgable at what the current market premiums are) The primary reason for the lower yield is the lower focus by the plant breeders on white corn because it is typically less than 2% of the total corn crop. (White corn is primarily used as a human food. I.e. Tostitos, White Corn Meal and other ethnic foods.) Why is white corn inferior to yellow dent? As an animal feed it is at a disadvantage to yellow corn because its amino acid profile is short an essential amino acid required in the livestocks digestion. Since most corn in the U.S. has been grown to date for livestock feed white corn is disadvantaged.
The 100+ year-old push-pull affect of the US economy on Mexican migration is a very well documented historical phenomenon. This time circumstances are somewhat different. Many Mexican campesinos--subsistence farmers that own their own land or jointly in a collective called an ejido--were forced off their land due to NAFTA rules that allowed the dumping of highly subsidized, below market-priced US corn on the Mexican market; however, the land is still there, idle. I would expect a return to the land before a large influx into El Norte. You see, there's a communication grapevine that provides information about conditions both north and south, and conditions for the undocumented migrant are not good in El Norte and unlikely to improve for some time. Further, traditional campesinos use very few fossil fuel imputs; in a very real sense, the idea of permaculture comes from Mexico's terraced gardens and the complementary growing system of beans, squash and corn. Why risk death crossing the border or incarceration if you make it when it's much easier to return to the farm?
Pemex's bankruptcy and Cantarell's crashing presents a political crisis for Mexico's elite and threatens the stabilty of the small middle class, and the same can be said of El Norte. Their crisis presents a great opportunity for the long downtrodden majority to gain power a la Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela.
Personally, I find it rather ironic that Bush's ethanol policy will destabilize Mexico's illegitimate president after he did so much to have him installed in the first place. Considering the great lack of corporate media coverage of events in Mexico unless you know Spanish, it will be hard to see the precursors of the coming revolution beyond those that are already there and very active.
Karlof1,
I think it would be great if the Mexican peons and farmers could return to their previous way of life and a more sustainable one. This could then serve as a model for ours as we begin to circle the drain.
Maybe it isn't too late for them. Maybe they will decide that the gringos are rather stupid after all.
Perhaps we inadvertenly did them a favor by dumping that corn on them.
I thought Calderon was a rather savvy dude. Surely he can see what our future could possibly be up here. Then he might have to build his own wall and detention camps in the future to keep out the gringos who can't even raise corn anymore.
Joseph Palmer...your link is merely a link in look...for whatever reason there is no web address associated with it. What is the actual address of that halliburton press release?
I'll try it another way...
http://www.halliburton.com/default/main/halliburton/eng/news/source_file...
... for what ever reason
joe, the href= out is missing in your anchor tag: {a href=""}{/a}
Thanks!
I have no way to prove or verify this, so take this with a grain of salt:
I suspect that this may be in prepration for the collapse of the Mexican gov't. If Mexico does collapse there probably be a large number of people who wish to flee the chaos. The US would be a likely destination. The purpose of the detention camps would to be deal with this situation. Since Mexico is largely dependant on Oil exports, a production collapse definately has the potential to create a collapse.
Good god Jeffery, there you go again, posting more gloom. Don't you know by now that increased production is right around the corner because we have a "history" of the last 20 years that says this will not be a problem. We will drill deeper, colder, faster and increase production so much we can't use it up. Get a little faith will ya? The Mexicans and thier gov't are going to be fine and they will not try to sneek into the US. Our Haliburton "hospitality centers" will be empty - just another waste of taxpayer money. So, could you please get with the program here.
Yeah, I told Ron that he and I need to get with the program--crashing super giant oil fields = higher aggregate world oil production.
As part of my continuing efforts to get someone else to do the hard work (Khebab?), it would be interesting to plot the total annual production from the super giants (one mbpd and more), presumably excluding Ghawar, since the data are so nebulous regarding Ghawar.
I have been pushing for a Net Oil Export panel at the ASPO 2007 meeting, but I told one of the organizers last week that by the time the convention rolls around, this fall, declining net oil exports may not be a debatable point any longer.
As I have been noting for a while, I'm sure it's just one of many "coincidences" that we are seeing a massive US military mobilization in the Middle East, just as we see rapidly accumulating evidence of rapidly declining net oil export capacity.
IMO, the big "surprise" this year will be Russia, along with the "shock" that Saudi Arabia is in decline. Finite limits in a finite world. And Peak Oilers are called cultists?
Hello Westexas,
You are probably right. Given that this is the case, no one needs to debate this point ad infinitum here on The Oil Drum any longer. If Hothgor and Freddy Hutter are skeptical, let them remain skeptical. Time will resolve the argument more effectively than any overheated rhetoric ever could.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
Sounds like something I have been saying for quite some time, but news is still news, and the Cantarell story is big news indeed.
Besides, outside the narrow world of Peakoildom, probably 90% plus of the population is certain, based on stories of near infinite oil by ExxonMobil, et al, that the US can continue to increase its total petroleum imports by about 5% every single year.
As I said up the thread, I wonder how well it is going to go over in Mexico if they try to curtail domestic oil consumption in order to ship oil to the US?
BTW, in your constant bashing of "evil oil types" like Robert and myself, has it escaped your attention that we are both in favor of taxing energy consumption, especially fossil fuel energy consumption? This is, shall we say, not exactly a popular concept in Oil Patch circles.
Hello Westexas,
Things will get really ugly down in Mexico. It is impossible to imagine something terrible occurring in Mexico which will not have some sort of terrible consequences for the United States of America, too.
Certainly those things which are praieworthy will receive their share of praise. Taxing energy is a small step in the right direction, but politically unlikely and certainly not enough even if it were to pass. Nature is going to impose an entirely different tax upon the United States of America and we all will suffer.
The United States of America is a country which can collapse, and this means that it will collapse. There's no prophecy involved in this prediction. This civilization was never built to endure forever.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
There we go again WT. Its do what I say, not what I do! I'll stop talking about numbers if you do. Unfortunately you and both know that will be impossible for you to keep your word on the issue.
BTW, this is yet another classic example of how WT focuses in on one small area around a super giant and attempts to apply that to the entire world.
I will state once again: declining super giants around the world do not necessarily mean that global production will decline/crash. In fact, we have 20+ years of history to prove this is the case, as 13 of the 14 super giants are confirmed to have declined/crashed over that time period, and only THREE, yes 3 of the 14 fields still produce over 1 million bpd.
Hothgor,
How will oil from S.A. or Nigeria (or where-ever) help when the Mexican fields go bad?
The Mexican economy still goes to hell. We still end up building a freaking wall on the border. Once we build the wall we are finished with Latin and South America. They will hate us. It will radicalize politics in a way that makes Iraq look tame.
You keep talking global production. But Mexico is local. They are not only our neighbors, there are 10,000,000 of them living amongst us today. Think about that.
Cantarell means Peak Oil is on our doorstep, not in 2012 or 2015... When Mexico falls apart we have significant challenges.
Dozens of countries have experienced declining oil production and a transition to a net importer of oil. How many of them have descended into chaos? Once again, the doomers are predicting nothing but mass chaos and destruction. The belief that the entire Mexican population is suddenly going to try to cross the border is only the latest in a trend of failed predictions.
"dozens of countries...... transition(ing) into net oil importers" .... not good news !
"How many of them have descended into chaos?"
Indonesia? They aren't doing too well. Let's keep an eye on Bahrain.
The ability to avoid 'descending into chaos' when your oil runs low seems entirely dependent on one thing: ability to still keep on making enough money (by making useful stuff) to buy more oil.
China of course has that ability (as did the USA decades ago) and so hasn't descended at all---their shift from oil surplus to deficit came because their own domestic demand for productive industry overran their supply.
Mexico is not like that. Presumably with lower and lower oil exports---as the national oil company will be forced to supply domestic needs before exporting---their currency will decline more and more. If they go to needing net imports then they will have to buy it with a currency the oil exporters will accept.
This will of course mean a greater pressure to emigrate to earn 'harder' money to pay for a better standard of living for their families back home.
This is the umpteeth time you repeat yourself accusing WT of repeating himself. How do you think that looks? Where's the satisfaction?
You have brains, but refuse to use them. Why would anyone be interested in that? You say there's no discussion here, but you're not discussing anything, you're just stating that things are NOT a certain way. That is not discussion, that's just negativity, and you can do better.
Let's see you explain why it is that despite crashes and decline of super giants, there is no oil problem yet. That would be a start. Go ahead.
I don't have to explain anything. History has proven my statements right, and WTs wrong. We have 20+ years now with 13 of the 14 super giant fields in decline that shows that global oil output can indeed rise. Only 3 of the 14 fields still produce more then 1 million bpd, but our global oil production has increased by over 20 million bpd.
What more do you want? And for what its worth, WT called on me first to sit back and let the numbers do the talking, yet he takes every occasion to rant about how the fields are declining worldwide, global output must decline, etc etc. Its hypocritical.
Hothgor,
You keep framing the question the wrong way. The accurate question is, since we had the first one mbpd and larger field, have we ever not had stable to rising production from the sum of all one mbpd and larger fields?
Assuming that Ghawar is in decline, we are now in a situation where we have never before been, at least since the first super giant started producing one mbpd or more, where all fields that are, or were, producing one mbpd or more are now in decline.
It's not a coincidence that world crude oil production is now declining.
So, you are arguing that we can have rising world oil production--even though all fields that are, or were, producing one mbpd or more are in decline--while in fact world crude oil production is falling.
Lets get a few facts interjected here before your spin cycle goes into full gear.
Fact: There were 14 fields world wide that produced more then 1 million bpd in the 1980s
Fact: 13 of those 14 fields are confirmed to be in decline or have crahsed
Fact: Since the 1980s, oil production globally has increase by over 20 million bpd.
Now that that is out of the way, in answer to your question, I want to make sure that it is properly framed to everyone here. You believe that when all 14 fields go into decline, we will have a global decline in oil production.
How then, do you explain the fact that when 13 of those 14 fields went into decline, we still managed to increase production by 20+ million bpd? Keep in mind guys that the 13 fields together produced at a minimum more then 3x as much as Ghawar does now. Yet despite this 20+ year history, WT believes the world will go into decline when a field that represents less then 20% of the production from the elite 14 craters. The remaining 80+% didn't seem to affect things very much :laughs:
Again,
The key question is the total annual production from all fields that are, or were, producing one mbpd or more. I'm fairly certain that this shows, until recently, a stable to rising production profile.
The key problem we face is trying to increase, or even stabilize, production, when all of the super giants are in decline. Assuming that Ghawar is declining, the three biggest producing fields in the world--Ghawar, Cantarell and Burgan--have only recently started declining or crashing, as total world crude oil production started falling.
You are arguing a situation that is contrary to the facts, i.e., in fact world crude oil production is declining.
And you are ignoring the fact that since the 1980s, global oil production has experienced at lest 7 dips in which oil production declined. In several of those cases, the decline was more then 1 million bpd. The longest period of decline was right around 3 years.
Your problem is that you have failed to address why this particular downturn is meaningful, nor can you explain away how extremely minor the decline has been thus far. We're fast approaching the 2 year mark since the 'peak', though this figure is likely to change as the numbers are constantly being backdated. While I can accept a small decline for one year, after the second, a la Texas, we should be seeing a 2% decline.
If we have a 2% decline, bringing the total decline to around 2 million bpd, you might have a point. Until then its just speculation, and you, nor I, nor anyone else can 'prove' their case.
As I have repeatedly said, what is the point of continuing to debate the timing of Peak Oil?
What we know is that the HL model predicted that 2006 was the most likely year for a start of the world crude oil decline, and world crude oil production is declining.
The decline appears to be accelerating, aggravated by the near certain simultaneous declines of the world's three largest producing oil fields.
Therefore, the available data are supporting Deffeyes' prediction, and that support is getting stronger, month by month.
So, what precisely do you hope to accomplish?
Why continue to grace us with your presence, at least until you have higher production data to support your case?
Hasn't RR gone over the whole HL thing numerous times before? HL make TERRIBLE predictors for when a region will peak, but they make great predictors for production after a region peaks. If we were to go back in time to 1950, and start modeling Texas, we would believe that a peak was imminent for the next 20 years. True, one of those years eventually proved to be the peak, but that doesn't mean you can ignore the other 19.
I myself have shown you and everyone else how wildly a HL fluctuates for a region with my KSA graphs, the URR increased almost 100 Gb in 3 short years! We've also already gone over the fact that because KSA was restricting their output to a set average rate for 12 years, their HL would be massively skewed to show a lower URR.
Yet despite these facts, you continue to persist in your same old rantings on every topic, smug in the knowledge that you can not possibly be wrong, constantly belittling others dissenting opinions by spinning what they said into something they didn't say.
When we see rising production in the next 18 months, and set new all time highs, I will remind you of this fact.
The only reason we have stable production right now is because of the deepwater production, which is growing extremely rapidly. From memory the deepwater grows from near 0% of global production in 2000 to near 15% in 2010 (please correct me if I am wrong - I just pulled that from a 1 year old memory - but the message from this still applies). Despite this the global production has hardly grown in the last few years. However, the deepwater stuff has a really short life. Look at the Angola profile in ASPO Jan 2007 newsletter. In 2010 the deepwater is expected to peak and then decline just as rapidly as it rose.
So, I would guess that the total of the giants you keep referring to are in decline and this is only being masked by the deepwater production. This deepwater production is only a little patch expected to see us through for 3 more years. Then we are oast. Whether the actual peak is in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 or 2009 is likely to be more dependent on goepolitics than anything else. WT is surely spot on to highlight that exports will peak infront of the production peak and so must be more imminent.
So, what is your point?
Deep Water is currently 4-mbd. ASPO forecasts this to rise to 13-mbd by 2011, dipping to 11-mbd by 2015 and 6-mbd by 2020 ... 69-mbd in total.
It is Deep Water that caused Campbell's most recent optimism on a later Peak. In 1999, Colin was predicting a Peak Rate of 93-mbd in 2009. He downward revised that to the point where in 2004 he was forecasting a Peak Rate of only 80-mbd in 2006. Analysis of Deep Water helped him move Peak Rate to 90-mbd in 2010.
Colin then foresees 52-Gb of Polar, 151-Gb of Heavy & 276-Gb of NGL with their own peaks of 2030, 2021 & 2035 respectively.
So, what is your point?
Hothgar is claiming that we have been offseting declining Giants for 20 years and that this therefor can obviously continue. My point is that this is ONLY JUST occuring today because of absolutely enormous growth in the deepwater. My point is that this growth will only last a few years. So my point is that the way we offset Giants 20 years ago is different to the way we are offsetting declining Giants today. Today we have a large shortlived spike offsetting these declines and nothing obvious beyond that.
My point is that the oil production outlook is very different today than it was in the 80's. I dont think that Hothgars comparison of the situation in the 80's and today is credible. Can't you see that?
Exactly.
All the points u make that oil production cannot grow forever can be made about steel, aluminum, copper, gold, wood, fresh water or any commodity. In economic terms, it is inevitable that growth peaks for every natural resource. But nobody except the PO fanatics see a crisis on the horizon for any of the commodities that are important to every day life. And it is because they do not understand the basic economics wrt supply and demand.
I hesitate but i will repost a reply given a few minutes ago on a thread from a few days ago that is heavily buried. I hope it underlines my thoughts on this more fully:
"Be that as it may, u have failed to recognize my point. Sorry for that. Let me say it another way. The reality is that the 327-Gb from OPEC and the 175-Gb from Canada and other red herrings don't matter in the big picture. Remaining Resources & Reserves totals 1936-Gb. Whether that figure is 30% too high does not change the reality that oil tankers will be with us for way over a hundred years.
In 2107, there will still be a Supply Rate of 16-mbd. If Peak comes before 2020, that 16-mbd will be much higher. URR used to grow at 40-Gb/yr. Thru this decade it has been triple that rate. But even if we slide back to 40-Gb/yr, it exceeds the 31-Gb/yr of consumption.
Nobody knows when Peak Date will be. And really it doesn't matter. The marketplace will determing pricing regimes and that same marketplace will show us the winners and losers wrt substitution and demand destruction. But the insane discussions at TOD wrt running out of oil demean the credibility of those here that are serious. I state for the fifth time: stranded URR is an oxymoron. Until most posters at TOD understand the concept of Reserves and quit navel gazing at Peak Rate, most debate is futile. No ... make that infantile.
Above are the round figures that the number crunchers on both sides agree on. This is the science of Peak Oil. Now, let us get back to the anecdotal and inflammatory stuff that seems to be far more entertaining ..."
Hi Freddy,
"But nobody except the PO fanatics see a crisis on the horizon for any of the commodities that are important to every day life. And it is because they do not understand the basic economics wrt supply and demand."
It seems to me that FF are a different type of commodity(ies) than the others you refer to, because they are necessary for extraction of those commodities, under our present arrangement (for the most part).
Could it be this is where the crises comes into it? (Assuming we don't make any major moves in terms of conservation or directing specific uses of the FF inputs we currently enjoy.)
But nobody except the PO fanatics see a crisis on the horizon for any of the commodities that are important to every day life.
Freddy, what is your definition of crisis?
To me the future is looking rather bleak down the road. Trends have been set in motion for substitutions, but I see no urgency in this area. Even if you believe the scalability is there for these alternatives, the lead times to rebuid existing infrastructure is going to assure that the life we know today will look much different in the future.
At the very minimum, it looks like we can kiss exponential economic and population growth goodbye.
You know Austex, this is one of things that is frequently mentioned that I just don't see eye-to-eye on. At the end of the day we're just going to have to wait and see what happens of course, but I think there may well be enough efficiency gains and simple lifestyle changes that can be made to offset declines and still allow for growth.
Ji, this is the reality. Especially lifestyle. Fortunately, the nations "would seem" to face the largest risk of crisis are in fact on the way to natural changes anyway. Europe, Canada, USA, Australia (as the big per capita consumers and abusers) are heading to an era of ageing population. They will become nations of "savers" over the next three decades. Japan and (West) Germany are already there.
As we saw in Japan, rising GDP is not a prerequisite to harmony and sustainability. Each year and one-by-one, nations will feel the grip of demographics and the subtle slowdown of consumer demand and growth. Adult diapers will be the coming hot commodity.
"steel, aluminum, copper, gold, wood, fresh water or any commodity. "
Have you noticed that recently, the price of copper aluminium steel, nickel and other metal has gone sharply up? What do you think is the reason of that?
Hutter wrote: All the points u make that oil production cannot grow forever can be made about steel, aluminum, copper, gold, wood, fresh water or any commodity. In economic terms, it is inevitable that growth peaks for every natural resource. But nobody except the PO fanatics see a crisis on the horizon for any of the commodities that are important to every day life.
By definition, if one speaks of ‘growth’ (on Earth) of anything at all, envisioning perpetual growth is completely unreasonable. However, the terms are not economic, but material. The price of tobacco has had a highest point in the past (even if it was just yesterday), but tells us nothing about the future of tobacco growing, smoking, and so on.
Lumping together gold and wood, to pick just two from the list of ‘natural resources’ is absurd. Gold is limited (by definition); its value (price) is mostly symbolic (jewelry); its productive uses are limited and I am sure replaceable (see my teeth - no gold); there is no Gold Crisis or Gold Peak - gold bullion, extracted over the ages, is plentiful. No one is going to run out of gold, and if they do, it hardly matters. Moreover, it is re-usable, recycled. Wood, on the other hand, is a ‘renewable’ resource, though for it to ‘renew’ humans must husband nature properly or leave it alone. Peak wood is not a useful concept.
Now, there are rumblings (as pointed out above) about the finitiness of copper for example. And there is a small community worried about the lack of water. About the former, I don’t know much, but for the latter alarmists are mistaken, water is plentiful and will continue so, the problems are political, of infrastructure, the economy, etc.
Comparing is thus interesting nonetheless. I sound like Hutter, but about H2O. :)
"cannot grow forever can be made about steel, aluminum, copper, gold, wood, fresh water or any commodity."
WOOD? I look out my window at several thousand acres or reprod forest some in the procees of thier first commercial thinning. Not to pick your arguement apart but wood shouldn't be in there.
"Nobody knows when Peak Date will be. And really it doesn't matter."
To within a year or two I would agree, after that I think there is more than ample reasons to be concerned today. Ethanol is a farce that will only waste more preciuos time.
"To say that your fate is not linked to mine is like saying your end of the boat is sinking" (RD)
FREDDY - DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RENEWABLE AND NON-RENEWABLE?
Only an idiot would presume that growth for commodities cannot peak.
i wasn't aware that old hubbert did such a sorry job of predicting the 1971 peak
Hubbert's forecasts start in 1956 with a forecast of a Texas Peak of 3.15-mbd in 1962. Then a 1971 forecast that the Lower 48 had likely peaked in 1966 with a URR of 165-Gb. He finally went on to forecast in 1976 that there would be a Global Peak of 101-mbd in 1995 with a URR of 2100-Gb.
"His prediction in 1956 that U.S.oil production would peak in about 1970 and decline thereafter was scoffed at then but his analysis has since proved to be remarkably accurate."
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/
At the API Conference in 1956, Hubbert forecast the that the USA Peak would be 8.2-mbd in 1968 amid a URR of 200Gb.
In a feature 1971 Scientific American article (The Energy Resource of the Earth) he speculated that the USA was post peak and that it has likely occured in 1966 based on its being centered in "the 65-year period from 1934 to 1999". Most of us are familiar with his Hubbert Curve graphs displaying peaks for Global, USA and Texas oil extraction. He went on to state that "For natural gas the peak of production will probably be reached between 1975 and 1980".
As RR has stated, it is easy for Revisionists and Monday morning quarterbacks to look back now and say "it was obvious" and "these methods are excellent forecast tools"; but like Deffeyes and Campbell (and me), it is quite difficult to see the Peak as it is happening.
Hothgar has shown that there have been two three-year pauses. They were false alarms. There are many factors that can cause pauses. If they are in play, we need retrospect for confirmation.
Hubbert did not pick 1970. He clearly chose 1968, then revised that to 1966 (based on his methodology). But why let facts ruin a good thread, eh.
"If present trends continue, Dr. Hubbert estimates, production will peak in 1995 -- the deadline for alternative forms of energy that must replace petroleum in the sharp drop-off that follows." from "Oil, the Dwindling Treasure," National Geographic [June, 1974]"
key words "If present trends continue"
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/
Oh my, the Revisionist is busy today. Please STOP cherry picking and misleading the members of our forums. In a follow-up Natinal Geographic feature article in 1976 (Two Centuries of Oil), Hubbert's graph and text was quite clear:
While it showed a 101-mbd Peak, it was revised in Science later in the year to show 110-mbd. Both showed a URR of 2000-Gb ... again, under estimated URR was the demise of his forecasts and exactly my point of why Peakists are so very wrong today both in terms of Peak Date, Peak Rate and Post Peak Decline. We are not running out of oil and to presume so and to promote so is absurd and misleading. There will be lotsa oil for a hundred years for our most precious needs. At a minimum, there will be 16-mbd extraction in 2107AD. As shown in another thread, it will likely be twice or three times that figure. Alarmism and the sense of Urgency is not helpful and easily dismissed by the science of the subject. RR knows this. Many of us at TOD know this. Too many do not...
Thank you for including the copy of the article.
From your text
"We are not running out of oil..." Key word "out", yes we will still be pumping (some) oil for a long,long time, I didn't think this was the point.
We in the US have gone from importing @30% in the 1970's to @60% today and you think I should be comfortable that we can continue to do so long into the future?
The UK is now an importer? Mexico is having problems, no? The lower 48 of the US?(Oh for chist's sake not that crap again right?) Alaska?
I think you are pissing up a rope. Come off it man, 30% to 60% are you daft(?) We should be doing something so that we are not vunerable to global events from nations tired of US interference, and that requires changes.
Details aside I think from a standback "big picture" view WT has it nailed and this is why you have such a problem with him. IMO PO in 2007 or 2015 woop de do! We are in "the zone".
So you think WT's claims will not stand up under tight review. You could be right and that would be fine with me seriously. I think you are missing the point. How do you build the replacement infastructure to offset declining oil production(opps! this is open for debate I forgot) while burning the fuel you need to build it, with little spare capacity. Where will the money come from?
My estimation is we will burn it before we get replacement infastructure, so you can relax. Us "lunatics" will stay addicted, buy and burn oil to the extent that we can afford to.
I think time will tell who is (more)right and who is got another agenda. I'm going to wait and see.
You are canadian no? Why would you want the US to use your natual resources in our big SUV's anyway? You like us that much?
it is fair then to say that your are a cornucopian ? or just a latent cornucopian ?
My position above is clear. The 13 recognized Outlook Models show me that we will have 16-mbd oil extraction in 2107. For the reasons above, that figure could easily double or triple. Shale becomes feasible at the $70 price point.
If u wish to debate or discuss these facts, fine. If u are merely trying to be an asshole, i have nothing further to discuss with u.
freddie, whay do you care about oil extraction in 2107 ? did you mean 2017 ? we cant reliably predict oil production in 2007 so what is the point. (of course one can average 13 estimates)
your postition appears to be clearly " dont worry be happy"
oil shale ? why not baked potatoes ? get real, we dont need to waste our dwindling resources on that.
i explained to you mbd refers to thousands of barrels per day ( in reservoir engineering parlance)
Do you really believe this? Or am I interpreting this out of context? To me, this is a highly illogical statement. Consider:
If oil production is in an accelerating state of decline, and that state of decline is SUPPLY-related (versus demand-related) then we would see an increase in both the spot and futures price of oil. We have not seen increases in these prices during the relevant time periods--quite the opposite, we have seen a substantial decline in oil prices.
Ergo, the only logical conclusion is that the recent decline in oil production is demand and not supply related.
Thoughts?
Hi Ener,
"We have not seen increases in these prices during the relevant time periods"
Thanks. Could you be a little more specific about the time periods you are referring to?
So, does your thesis here rule out a previous high price leading to "demand destruction" (anywhere)? (I'm trying to learn.)
1. When Deffeyes predicted increasing volatility, wasn't it based on this idea?
2. Is there anything else that might account for a lack of increase in both spot and futures prices?
3. In other words, when you say, "If oil production is in an accelerating state of decline, and that state of decline is SUPPLY-related (versus demand-related) then we would see an increase in both the spot and futures price of oil.", you're sure about this?
4. Are any historical examples relevant at all?
Hi Aniya,
The time frames I'm referring to are the period that Westtexas cites frequently when he is discussing the decline--for the last 1-1.5 years or so.
As for "demand destruction," I dislike that term as it doesn't really mean anything. It's not a term used in economics; it's a recently coined term as far as I can gather. A more accurate term would be "demand reduction." A subtle difference, perhaps, but a very important one because "destruction" implies that's it's gone for good (or at least a reasonable time frame), which isn't necessarily the case.
In my humble opinion, if the people who are calling for a peak right now are correct they are either:
1) Visionaries who see something that almost no else does, or
2) Very lucky, or
3) Correct simply by virtue of calling for a peak every year until it actually occurs.
If we are peaking right now wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that there would be people out there with connections to big $ who would also be seeing all the signs? Wouldn't it also be reasonable to assume that a barrel of oil in 7 years time will be far more valuable than a barrel of oil today?
If so, then those with money should be pouring it into longer range futures. The fact that we are NOT seeing this leads me to believe that those with or connected to $$ do not believe we are peaking. Which leads me to points 1), 2), and 3), above.
Very well put, Ji. And often the doomers are victims of insufficient information that others possess. Or they have the same info, but misinterpret it.
Take yesterday's 8% vs 2% discussion. Ron et al saw the sky falling. Yet this Presentation has been discussed twice since early November and the MSM and pundits did not put out a "BREAKING NEWS" flash on it.
Why was that? Well sorry, but most at TOD got it wrong yesterday by Ron's (hopefully) unintentional spin.
Let me elaborate via a simultaneous post here and in yesterday's thread:
"It is not a matter of being true (Dragonfly), moreso of being correct. When we discussed this document last month (and in Nov) i mentioned that readers should take care when reading Nawaf Obaid's text 'cuz his is the realm of KSA Security ... not geology.
Ron's pg16 includes glaring errors with "decline rate" and "depletion rate" used interchangeably. Therefore, one cannot use logic to interpret Ron's points.
"decline rate" refers to the drop in extraction rate as expressed in "mbd"
"depletion rate" refers to the drop in URR as expressed by "Gb"
In almost all cases, Obaid means depletion rate of reserves ... not monthly or annual production.
Going back to the presentation, it is typical KSA or Aramco rhetoric in their press releases and presentations to include how much field decline is happening each year. This one is no different.
On pg6, they openly admit that the "present" operating fields face the reality of an 0.8-mbd/day decline rate. On their published production rate of 8.6-mbd, this equates to 9.3% YOY (not net). It is clear that some older fields suck big time.
But if one turns to pg9, one sees that the planned closure of the older fields, unshuttering of dormant fields and opening of new fields brings to their operations a new decline of 0.5-mbd on proposed production of 10-mbd in 2009 (assuming maintenance of the 2.55-mbd surplus capacity). This equates to a decline rate of 5% YOY in 2009 and drops to (non net) 4.6% by 2011.
Ron is neither right nor wrong. He is neither brilliant nor an idiot. Mistakes happen. This was one that confused many (but not all). I studied Geology and Economics in university. All of us at TOD have our specialties with which to contribute via formal Education or Schools of Hard Knocks."
yeah freddie, i studied music heritage "in university" but dont call me a musician
correction to my above text: (Almost) All of us at TOD have our specialties with which to contribute ...
But on your page for your unsuccessful run for the legislature you also make no claim for any kind of degree. Classes got a little hard in the end did they?
http://hutter.ca/
I thought demand destruction was just another regular Econom 1 term, happy to hear it is not the case.
People stop (or reduce) their buying of x because they become poor and can no longer afford; because the same function can be fulfilled in another way; because new and better is just well better; because fashion and material signs of social status change; because communities enact laws that prohibit buyers from indulging; because new discoveries supersede old ones; because they want change at any price; because prices rise in an artificial way; because they die, so can’t buy, or whatever.
Calling all that ‘demand destruction’ is a cop-out, ie. attributing a post hoc blanket cause to an observed result or present state-of-affairs.
Absurd.
Hi Ener Ji,
Thanks for responding.
re: "people...calling for a peak right now.." Well, I haven't received a response from my question list below, so I'll just put this one on hold, if ok.
re: "demand reduction". Did you happen to read Deffeyes's ideas about increasing volatility? I believe there have been some TOD posts on this, as well. Wonder what you think of the idea, regardless of which term one uses.
I know very little about these kinds of markets. I had thought the idea was that yes, the barrel would be more valuable in 7 years - *unless* there is sufficient "reduction" that it is not valuable. In other words, that one might expect an overall rise, while still having increasing volatility, which, if the swings are big enough, poses a special problem. (However, I do not know how long-term futures work.)
So, if increasing volatility, how would this impact your thesis here?
re: "...a barrell of oil in 7 years time..." What you are saying makes sense...
1) Just mulling this over... unless there are psychological or emotional factors that come into play on the part of "those with money". My experience is that money, education and just about any other category I can name, does not necessarily mean one is able to accept or even investigate the concept of "peak", especially given the implications (no matter what one imagines them to be.) What I'm trying to say is: the emotional difficulty of the topic may be a factor. (In any case, I have noticed it is difficult in a way few things are.) I don't have anecdotes to draw from wrt people w. huge lots of money, so I don't know if they form a special category.
2) Did you read the Rainwater interview in Forbes? If so, how does this fit in with what you're saying?
3) Do you believe that Dick Cheney knows about "peak", (given his oft-quoted talk (http://www.energybulletin.net/559.html) If so, what do you suppose his actions to be in relation to this? Would you consider him to be someone in the "$$" category?
Sorry Aniya, I'm still relatively new to following peak oil and I'm not familiar with much of the material you cite and don't have time to look it up right now.
I probably should check out some of Deffeyes' work one of these days as it's so frequently cited around here...
Hi Ener Ji,
Thanks for responding. I thought your original point raises a very interesting question. I'd like to know how others on the forum (who understand markets better than I do) might respond. It might be worth trying to "search" for previous posts.
Just to summarize, my questions for you are directed towards wondering if there are other factors that might enter in to "people w. mega-money" either 1) not really being able to come to terms w. "peak" and thus not acting in the way you suggest (long-term "bets") or 2) knowing and realizing that perhaps such action would actually contribute to a "pre-peak" situation, which might be disastrous,(i.e., destroy the very market they want to make money off of). Richard Rainwater doesn't say this, but says something similar -http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2005/12/26/8364646/and/or 3) since I don't know enough about how markets work, I don't know if there might be something about how they function that would result in a high volatility situation meaning people do not "place long", even though the overall direction is "higher price".
Anyway, Kenneth Deffeyes has a website. He has predicted increasing volatility, so you could always write to him and ask him why.
They are.
The energy futures markets used to be "backwardated" -- contracts farther away were cheaper than contracts for nearterm delivery. This was like getting a discount for agreeing to buy something ahead of time. And this was what you'd expect because with excess production capacity, the most likely issues were too much production or insufficient demand.
Currently though, energy futures markets are in "contango" -- contracts farther away are more expensive than contracts for nearterm delivery. The market now reflects the likelyhood that future energy will be more scarce and demand will exceed supply.
Well stated. You appear to have your numbers in order.
"Lets get a few facts interjected here before your spin cycle goes into full gear.
Fact: There were 14 fields world wide that produced more then 1 million bpd in the 1980s
Fact: 13 of those 14 fields are confirmed to be in decline or have crahsed
Fact: Since the 1980s, oil production globally has increase by over 20 million bpd.
Now that that is out of the way, in answer to your question, I want to make sure that it is properly framed to everyone here. You believe that when all 14 fields go into decline, we will have a global decline in oil production.
How then, do you explain the fact that when 13 of those 14 fields went into decline, we still managed to increase production by 20+ million bpd"
Obvious potential answer would be the transfer into production of new discovery oil fields previously unexploited, as well as the revival of Russian oil.
I think it's pretty safe to say that the pace of full new field discovery has declined significantly and Russian oil is now being produced with more modern methods.
It isn't just the decline of large fields, but the low probability of new fields to take their place.
I don't have to explain anything.
You're right, you don't. You are free to just keep on repeating the same things, without explaining or proving any of them. That appears to suit the owners of this forum just fine.
History has proven my statements right,
Really? I've seen no such proof, but maybe i missed something.
So tell me: What statements exactly?
Are you arguing that the giant fields are not declining?
Or that there's oil coming from somewhere else? And if so, from where?
Is there a possibility that massive investemnts in horizontal drilling play a role?
Anything else?
No, you don't have to explain. It's like taking the fifth.
Wow! Just Wow!
Are you suggesting that oil production did not in fact increase by over 20 million bpd during the same period of time in which 13 of the 14 super giants declined and crashed? I'm sure the world would like to know that we are in fact only producing around 55 million bpd now, not the 85 we currently have!
As I said, you don't have to explain, feel free, but this is not an explanation, once again. Weak.
TOD = Trolls Obfuscating Daily
I find little value in the comments of the few who are hijacking this site.
Moving on:
http://timesofoman.com/inner_cat.asp?cat=4&detail=2566&rand=usSZNm3gHL0A...
Do you really want to discuss and think? Or just be an annoyance. You are still ignoring the fact that production increased during the time you are describing due to the opening up of entirely new, virgin oil regions with large previously untouched oil fields. They compensated for the decline and added new production (together with infill drilling and eor strategies). No such region is currently in development now or realistically on the horizon (Barent's Sea is an oil bust so far, Greenland (it anything is there) is likely decades away at best). If you added Cantarell, Ghawar, Burgan together they are equal to a lot of the other fields you are referring to and their decline is worth that of many other of the fields put together.
Your question is a good one, but it doesn't seem you are looking for thoughtful answers. There is a big difference between then and now which is obvious. If you are looking for where the new fields are (and there are many under development), there are good studies out there by Koppelar and Skrebowski, and their authors do not believe we are at peak yet. They can give a basis for their views and list their assumptions, the main variables which are unknown being rates&timing of decline for existing fields and true status of KSA fields which none of us know. Depending on these unknowns, peak could range from now (or just past) to several years in the future.
Hello Mathew,
Your current post looks for me like a big improvement, short, easy on the eyes and right on target. I agree that The Oil Drum is more on a technical side, no rhetoric here please.
Your predictions may come to pass - or not - but what seems contrary to your point of view about Ghawar being in decline is the fact that professional oil traders all seem to be of the view that there would be far too much oil on the market today but for the VOLUNTARY withholding of production by KSA and other OPECers. How can you be so sure that KSA production capacity is declining for Hubbertian reasons when the pro's seem to be of a very different mind?
Hi oilaholic,
Thanks for another version of the question.
"How can you be so sure that KSA production capacity is declining *for Hubbertian reasons* when the pro's seem to be of a very different mind?" (attempt to add emphasis).
As far as I'm trying to sort this out: (And please feel free to comment on my efforts) (and apologies for boring anyone):
1. Jeffrey is positing Hubbert as an explanation for the decline, not visa-versa, so I'm not sure he has to add any reason to be "so sure". In other words,
a. Jeffrey holds that the production data up till now is sufficient to apply HL, and
b. HL has a prediction range for "peak". (Jeffrey, is this an accurate re-statement?) and
c. Within the range (specificity welcome, I'm being general), Jeffrey says, "This is it."
In addition, he's listed his "coincidences". (Which I would try to look up if I thought I wouldn't lose my page here by doing so.)
2) As far as how to account for the differences of opinion, namely:
Camp A: Jeffrey, and others: As stated above.
Camp B: The current rates are within peak range prediction, (yes?), however...we are not there. Yet.
My questions to "Camp B" are
1. Do you subscribe to HL?
2. Do you agree (if stated accurately above) there is enough data to apply HL?
3. Do you subscribe to an HL *range* for peak? If so, what is it?
4. Do you have any other criteria (HL or otherwise) for determining peak?
If so, what are they?
Examples: a) As I asked Hothgor the other day, is there a number of months after which you/Camp B is willing to say, "peak was in month 1"?
What exactly do you mean by Colder? Are you talking about the artic?
There is a temperature gradient in the earth that increases about 1 to 2 degrees F for each 100 ft of depth.
Yes colder(above ground) areas - working conditions that add expense - Alaska the artic - all add cost compared to say Bakerfield California. Does this matter as a percentage of cost? Probably not, we will take it if we can get it.
Where is "the tipping point"
At what price does it cause economic disruption I will not ever try to guess. Disruption imho would be from a spike or outright shortage. In little ways x many thousands of oil users price will affect decisions. Things will slowly contract over many years if we are lucky. Look at how tight the situation has been over the last severl years. Look at China selling all those cars. A larger war in the ME could cause some big problems for everyone.
The head of Schlumberger said "We've only just begun" deep-water drilling in their most recent quarterly conference call. He specfically mentioned the Gulf of Mexico but was reluctant to name customers. (It wasn't Nabors, my mistake the other day).
Interestingly, his wavering response to the question about onshore North American gas drilling led to him to say that the end of February will "tell the tale" (I think were his words) about the future of onshore gas. His tone seemed negative and grumpy that the analysts were so curious about this geographical area.
(Although it seems I'm talking to myself) The gist of Schlumberger's view is that a lot of production is going to come online in the spring in North American natural gas, and as a result drilling activity may decline, and therefore Schlumberger may be impacted. It seems economics is still at play in the gas world -- higher price is still creating supply.
Also, the time frame for oil supply response was given as 2008 and 2009 due to the coming deliveries of new drilling platforms.
Hello WT,
Thxs for the WSJ link. What I want to see now is the White House and Los Pinos press corp to send volley after volley of questions to Bush & Calderon asking them what they plan to do about Cantarell's collapse.
1. Is SuperNafta the answer, or building the Border Wall sky-high?
2. Free-market to determine ELM, or can Mexico unilaterly hoard?
3. When Pemex goes broke, will the US IOCs buy it for mere pesos?
4. When Pemex's pensioners are denied funds, what then?
5. What is the future expected gasoline price in US & Mexico?
6. When Mexicans start attacking Pemex assets, does US Army protect?
7. Why didn't you practice Peakoil Outreach to inform people earlier?
8. Project 'Taking out the Rubbish' for Mexican poor like Zimbabwe?
9. When Mexican stock market & govt collapse--what then?
10. Long range plans: Is it rifles or wheelbarrows and bicycles?
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
At a decline rate of 400,000 barrels per year, which seems to be both what David Shields and the internal PEMEX report is saying, Mexico will be at just about zero net oil exports at the beginning of 2010. It is already a gasoline importer, and not being an oil industry insider, I believe this relates to the general low quality of the oil they are producing (albeit there are some smaller new fields with high quality oil). They are however having better luck with increasing natural gas production, although the scale of NG production is much smaller than oil production.
Long before net oil exports hit zero, the Mexican government will face a severe financial crisis. At first, they will resort to traditional methods – inflationary deficit spending, military crackdowns on the poor, and begging for loans from the US government. On the later, most likely, Mexico will be able to borrow quite a lot directly from the US, or indirectly through some sort of guarantee/IMF/World Bank loans, before they are cut off. After all, "The Wall" has not yet been built, and those detention centers not quit ready.
I would not advise being in the Mexican stock market, being the peso may be devalued faster than any inflationary gain.
Unknown to may Americans, GWB has recently signed an exceutive order granting some Social Security benefits to illegal Mexican immigrants who had a valid work history in Mexico. So there is still some type of NAFTA cooperation going on, but it is questionable if super NAFTA will ever get off the ground.
I can't find a reference, but I remember that money sent back to Mexico by "guest" workers in the US is second only to current oil revenues in the Mexican economy. This order could be reversed soon if it already hasn't.
Plus, Mexico is facing more problems on its southern border:
Despite Crackdown, Migrants Stream Into Mexico
Hi Joules,
Just did a "google" - the second one seems to list a number of studies.
http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/000911.html
http://www.cairco.org/econ/econ.html
CM
So there is still some type of NAFTA cooperation going on, but it is questionable if super NAFTA will ever get off the ground
Saw Lou Dobbs late this week and he had the writer of some of the documents from some University, and Dobbs was hammering him about this CanAmMex thing. The guy looked nervious and Dobbs was putting a huge spotlight on him.
A lot of people got exposure to this subject on that show.
"10. Long range plans: Is it rifles or wheelbarrows and bicycles?"
I knew there had to be wheelbarrows there somewhere... ;-)
Anyway, I would say that my wheelbarrow is just about one of the most important tools here on the ol' farm, but I've got a nice mountain bike and, come to that, a trusty old Winchester 30-30, too. So it ain't either/or :-)
But I know what you're driving at...
Please forgive me if posted before:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16837817/
-----------------------------------------
On good days, the neighbors line up for her tortillas.
But these are not good days, and sometimes hours pass without any customers.
Mexico is in the grip of the worst tortilla crisis in its modern history. Dramatically rising international corn prices, spurred by demand for the grain-based fuel ethanol, have led to expensive tortillas. That, in turn, has led to lower sales for vendors such as Rosales and angry protests by consumers.
-------------------------------------------
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
re: mexico's decreasing oil production ,on the day this was announced the msm attributed the rise in oil price to bush's proposal for expanding the spr (over a period of 13 yrs)
Exactly elwood, China has just completed stage one of their SPR initiative. They did it at a rate of 1-mbd/wk, precisely the rate i quoted on SOTUA nite that the usa would be targetting. It is a non story.
Part 1 of he UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) draft report that is due next week will be all over the world media, climate is a hot political potato.
The IPCC was set up as the largest and most impartial method to study climate change. Large it is, with 2500 scientists participating. Impartial it is not, the White House has its greasy fingers all over the report. The Guardian today publishes US comments stemming from September 2006, and it's not hard to predict that a lot more has been rewritten since.
For the entire world population, this means that neutral assessments of global warming are not available; they've been usurped by industry lobbies, a tactic that has become common in the US, and is now spreading.
The IPCC report's relevance is best illustrated by the fact that coming international negotiations, including Kyoto, will be based on its findings. Hence, the world community will spend 100's of billions of dollars of taxpayers' money on policies based on essentially false information.
That is a ridiculous notion.
"giant mirrors in space or reflective dust pumped into the atmosphere would be important insurance against rising emissions, and has lobbied for such a strategy to be recommended by a major UN report on climate change"
Do you ever feel that your 17 year old son has gotten hold of the keys of your Ferrari, which no longer seems to be in the drive? (the Ferrari being the climate, which can be a savage and dangerous beast, and the teenager being Bush and Co).
What a great analogy!
I would, of course, expect, that the Bush administration would want to choose reflecting the sunlight before they would seriously consider anything so inconveninet as actually committing to cutting our greenhouse gas emissions. There only bow to conservation is to ask congress to give them authority to set standards for cars. This will, of course, not happen, because congress knows exactly what Bush would do with such authority --- essentially nothing. Or, if Bush did anything, it would be set to set different standards for each type of vehicle. This would be done to ensure nothing is done about SUVs.
Having said that, I have virtually zero faith that the U.S. or the rest of the world will set in motion a plan that would signicantly mitigate global warming, even assuming that anything can be done at this point. We need to reduce greenhouse gases by at least 80%. Nothing on the horizon will get us there and there is no politician in the U.S. that would commit to such a goal. Even if we set that goal, I have no faith that our feckless politicians would ensure that we get there. At the slightest economic or other inconvenience, we will cry uncle and abandon any targets that took even the slightest amount of sacrifice.
With respect to doing anything about global warming that entails cutting emissions, the situation is hopeless. As much as I detest and distrust the Bush administration, I believe that the only hope for stemming global warming is sunlight reflection. Everything else is too little, too late.
Given that there will be few meaningful restraints on energy consumption by the world community, we will proceed to tear up and destroy what little there is left of the world's resources. If there is, indeed, an abundant energy source that is economically feasible, we will maximize its use until we run up against the next available constraint, such as water or land.
Well said. Sadly, I fear you will be proved correct.
I recommend George Monbiot's "Heat - How to Stop the Planet Burning" for a good exposé of what is actually required to cut emissions by 80%. Its sobering stuff.
"George Monbiot's Heat - How to Stop the Planet Burning"
...which I reviewed here:
http://transitionculture.org/2006/12/19/two-reviews-of-heat-how-to-stop-...
(Identity revealed! The Green College and its website will fully launch on 1 Feb.)
Although its easy to immediately dismiss this approach, I believe its a useful and necessary step.
Realistically speaking both climate change and peak oil are set on course. Little we do now are going to change the path we are on - the will and the acceptance of the problem just isn't there in any rational way.
Therefore we are left with a problem, little oil to fuel our civilisation at the same time as CO2 really raises temperatures and creates deserts out of farm land.
A long lived technological solution to greenhouse effect warming, implemented now, could help save large parts of mankind down the road when civilisation hasn't the effort to do it.
It a better and more useful use of space than a mars mission at this time...
I've been away from TOD for a few days (intermittantly for a few months) and reading to catch up. I am particularly worried by the increase in flaming on Drumbeat. I regularly reccomend (as do many of you i'm sure) this site a good objective look at the various scenarios of energy depletion. I am however becoming incresingly embarresed by some of the posts.
I understand that banning members could be construid as sensorship and the offending parties will cry foul of such tact in dealing with the flames.
However I feel a a sensible line needs to be drawn here by the moderators in limiting the damage that TOD does to itself in allowing offensive posts.
My penny's worth.
Marco.
We are concerned about this as well. The problem is we really do not have the manpower to moderate the threads, delete posts, and ban users. (Not least because they can just sign up for another screen name and continue the idiocy.) I think we may be going toward a Slashdot-type user rating system. It's not ideal, but it probably has the best EROEI. ;-)
We are concerned about this as well. The problem is we really do not have the manpower to moderate the threads, delete posts, and ban users. (Not least because they can just sign up for another screen name and continue the idiocy.) I think we may be going toward a Slashdot-type user rating system. It's not ideal, but it probably has the best EROEI. ;-)
Some of my posts lately have probably been a little bizzaro because I'm trying to catch up reading some of the back postings. So I've been posting stuff in a new thread that comes from threads before. But it's irking me when I waste my time on total flame wars (i.e. RR's a corporate shill, AMPOD has small genitalia, Hothgor shouldn't be allowed to breath) stuff that has absolutely no redeeming value...it's even more apparent when you're reading thread after thread, and not just dealing with it on a daily, up to date, basis. I would definitely donate some of my time to deleting complete-flame posts, given the ability to do so. But obviously you, nor any of the other folks on the right-hand panel have any clue who I am, nor my intentions...so it brings up a good question of who gets the power to decide "who lives and who dies."
There was a thread a million miles back about how to moderate threads, and though my carbon-based information processing and storage unit has misplaced the details of what I'd posted there, I think I advocated a system in which the community could vote on posts and have them hidden (even from people not logged in). I'm definitely in favor of a community-based solution of self policing. But even that would take some moderating, and would have a teething phase whereby the limits would have to be tested as to when a post gets hidden. Then there would be the occasion where maligned posters who actually post good stuff from time to time (i.e. Hothgor) would immediately be bombed, and that would require a moderator to undo unjustly hidden posts.
And as to posters who just make a new name and come back...yes and no. My guess is that after having to create a couple dozen new e-mail accounts, they might be less inclined to just keep getting banned. Those with lesser persistence may yield all together at that point.
I disagree with you about Hothgor. IMO, he deserves to be bombed. He is a troll. He's not trying to understand peak oil, find a solution, help build the community, etc. He just wants to rile people up.
Boy howdy, he sticks out like a sore thumb.
Leanan for benevolent dictator. Very few would complain. Maybe none.
If you don't want the job, totally understandable. But it would get the job done simply, effectively, immediately.
I agree, Leanan will be perfect moderator.
---
Human not on Phx, Is Yeast smarter than Bob?
Inquiring minds want to know.
I disagree with you about Hothgor. IMO, he deserves to be bombed. He is a troll. He's not trying to understand peak oil, find a solution, help build the community, etc. He just wants to rile people up.
I think a lot of what happened is that when he first started posting here, his posts were very dismissive, were more emotional than numbers based, and they were written as if fact...so people took offense. He countered with personal attacks, they countered those attacks with more personal attacks. So now, even when he posts HL plots, EIA numbers and tries to argue based on logical reasoning, other posters immediately jump out of the bushes with "go back in your hole, troll" and "known liar!" They don't argue with him based on the data presented. At which point, rather than just letting it slide, he gets into the name calling game. But...he has been trying. Even Freddy Hutter has a place here, because as his posts get debunked, it makes "our" case stronger. These are posters which are more likely to resort to name calling when provoked, but if every time you came on and posted something like "The EIA shows that July production is higher than May" which is basically innocuous, that everyone posted in response "You suck!" Would you be in a spiffy mood?
I don't think you have accurately described the situation, but it doesn't really matter.
I would think about why it is that people responded that way. And I would either mend my ways so as not to provoke the response, or leave, if I thought the people doing it were irrational.
I'd be happy if Hothgar did either of those things, but I don't think he will. He likes to stir people up, and right now, this site is kind of a sweet spot for trolls. Large enough to provide a good audience, small enough to be unmoderated.
In any case, no moderator intervention is required. The way the system usually works is you can uprate as well as downrate posts. So if someone's getting "bombed," you can give them a high rating to offset it. Usually one high rating will offset a lot of troll ratings, so one or two people can offset a lot of bad ratings, at least enough to keep the post visible.
If there are so many bad ratings that a couple of high ratings are swamped, well, maybe the post deserves to be invisible.
I'll agree that he likes to use...inflammatory language, and can be a bit personal - especially with respect to WesTexas (perfect example above, unfortunately) - but he does try to bring something to the debate:
Ok, he was a bit of an a$$ the way he asked it (in the original full post), but this is interesting and I'm curious to know how the decline of these supergiants have affected oil production.
However, the Mr.Hyde of OilCEO, and his resurrected ghosts Lipstick Jihad, and James Bond...there's a wall of text there and it's all just babble or flame. That's Troll to me. There's usually a little substance to Hothgor's posts, though he may be a bit of an a$$ about it. Do I like that he's a pain to WT? No. Does he contribute something to the debate? I think so. It seems to be other people's over-reaction and ad-hominem attacks that prove most disruptive.
I broadly agree Substrate. But what I cant figure is this...
You wrote:
//
These are posters which are more likely to resort to name calling when provoked, but if every time you came on and posted something like "The EIA shows that July production is higher than May" which is basically innocuous, that everyone posted in response "You suck!" Would you be in a spiffy mood?
//
If a poster was treated this way whenever they arrived here, why would they keep coming back, unless they were a troll? I just cant understand it any other way.
If a poster was treated this way whenever they arrived here, why would they keep coming back, unless they were a troll? I just cant understand it any other way.
If I knew why people did weird things, I'd probably rich right now ;)
Take for example: fire walking, being suspended by hooks in the ceiling, polar bear club, penis gourds, PeeWees playhouse, and Paris Hilton
I'm a 'troll' because I have a dissenting opinion? Leanan, looks like your jumping on the band wagon! I have stated on numerous occasions that I agree with the peak oil assessment; global oil production must inevitably reach a maximum, then decline. I have offered dozens of solutions to the peak oil problem, including electrification of the transportation fleet, energy conservation at the home and a short term focus on alternative fuels until the battery technology gets up to spec. There are now close to 2 dozen people here who, if not agree with me outright, support many of my questions and outlook.
No, once again, what you people want is a popularity contest in which those who don't agree with you get banned. Tell me Leanan, how does that foster a rational scientific debate? How does that help the rest of us gain a better understanding of the challenges we face? What you seem to be implying is that supporting popular opinions trump scientific objectivity.
The day that happens is the day TOD becomes just another one of those 'fringe' peakster sites.
I don't really understand the origin or the use of the word troll in this context. In my view, you are simply a fool. And a bombastic one. Only a bombastic fool could equate scientific objectivity with the nonsense you post.
Only a 'bombastic fool' would believe that a debate is going on when everyone agrees with each other. Science never has a consensus on any principle.
I thought this site was supposed to be a discussion, not a debate. I come here to learn, not to read an argument.
And yet you feel you can only learn by hearing one side of the story. Besides that fact, its not much a 'discussion' when everyone agrees. If there were no dissenters, TOD might as well close shop, as nothing new could ever be brought to the table.
Dissenters with facts are always interesting. Those without facts are trolls, dontcha think?
Which is why most people have stopped calling me a troll. :laughs:
If Hothgar is banned I'll stop reading this site. I must suspect that some of his earlier posts were insulting. All I have seen over the past few months is him insulted called horrible names, "bombastic fool" and reply with relative equanimity. What gives? For what it's worth, I have never seen Hothgar refer to WT or RR as "bombastic fools".
No, some people consider(ed) you a troll because you originally just jumped all over the place, with little focus or care, while dismissing various facts and individuals, without seeming to have any relevant knowledge.
Then for a while, you actually seemed to try to improve your style, and engage in honest debate - for which you did not receive universal acclaim, but it was still a decent attempt.
Unfortunately, and maybe even uderstandably considering how some people dismiss even your reasonable postings, you have pretty much seemed more focused on certain points, none of which seem to be little more than attacks - and no, a 'dissenting opinion' is not exactly why others can find these postings tiresome.
I do actually think a measure of how this forum works is in how someone such as yourself is treated (assuming, as I generally do, you are actually trying to bring something to a discussion).
But considering that many people consider your original presence as a gigantic belly flop, don't be surprised that this is the impression which remains.
There is nothing fair about this, but trying to reduce the tiresome pointing out of flaws or perceived flaws might be a subject to avoid, while trying to focus your actually proven determination on something which adds to the pool of knowledge - for example, if you are truly interested in electrification of transport, some hard information related to that area, along the lines of Stuart Staniford's work - how much energy for how many miles travelled at what cost of infrastructure/vehicles, etc.
And even if you did excellent work, some people would still call you a troll - learning how to ignore people is a pretty useful skill too.
Which is why I find part of this troll name calling silly - it is always easy to completely ignore someone who posts under the same name, and to never to respond to what they write.
My opinion remains open in your case, for some reason - obviously, many other people have made up their mind. And recently, they have been pretty much confirmed in that opinion.
Like most open-to-whomever blogs, the best part is the flaming. The amount of useful information is low. All that gets offered is the past and conjectures about the secretive oil producers, conjectures about what will happen after some point in the future, but nothing in the way of hard facts, such as:
1. How much oil/gas can KSA produce and for how long?
2. How much oilgas can Russia produce and for how long?
3. How much oil/gas is there along the west cost of Africa?
4. How much oil/gas is there in the coastal USA?
These questions and other I'm sure we all can thing up are the only questions that matter, not the HL model [too small a sample to be reliable], nor the various speculations and conjectures mean anything.
Since I see very little in the way of hard fact offered in the replies [not that there isn't occasionally some], it leaves only the meanderings and flame wars as reasons for readng. Face it, the fact that so many posters have the time to read this stuff and get involved suggest that their jobs are not important, so why should I suspect that their opinions have any real information [pace, Bob Shaw]?
Sounds like a good idea. I look forward to it.
Hello Marco,
The Oil Drum is many things but it is by no means objective.
As to the flame wars, etc. ... where have you been for the last year?
The Oil Drum is a website devoted to the oil industry's interests. And it has always served the interests of the oil corporations. Robert Rapier is merely the most egregious example of a hobbyist - virtual lobbyist. I am certain that there are plenty of others who serve a similar purpose.
What is also of great concern to me is that there are many instances of where individuals have given investment advice here on The Oil Drum. I wonder about the ethics of such advice. There are undoubtedly conflicts of interests involved.
Finally, I know that there are plenty of people looking forward to $100 a barrel oil as a means of gaining massive personal wealth. Needless to say, these people certainly do have a conflict of interest if they are promoting the Peak Oil idea in order to inflate the value of oil futures.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
A person can reply to a comment: 'person A is wrong because of X,Y,Z.' This is what I consider objective argument and debate.
However a personal attack on person A does not bring objectiveness to the argument. Bringing the defendants'/witness' argument into question via an attack on their credibility is a common tactic amongst barrasters/lawers and I can see the same tactics being (subconciuosly?) employed here. However in this instance these flames do nothing to make people question the credibility of what they are saying. They just sound childish.
Marco.
Hello Marco,
There is no personal attack involved in pointing out the existence of conflicts of interest here at The Oil Drum. All of these servants of Big Oil are active here on behalf of their own self interests and the interests of their corporations: Where is the objectivity?
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
I was referring to the 'personal attacks' during the flaming that was going on . (sorry if I was not explicit).
I believe the objectivity comes from the wide ranging views held and voiced by the all non abusive posters here.
Marco.
D. Mathews writes
"The Oil Drum is a website devoted to the oil industry's interests. And it has always served the interests of the oil corporations. Robert Rapier is merely the most egregious example of a hobbyist - virtual lobbyist. I am certain that there are plenty of others who serve a similar purpose."
I find this comment confusing from my perspective. I get a sense that TOD is a place to get information and that for the most part has served to warn people of a decline in availability of liquid fossil fuels in the near future. You can look at it a couple of ways either that they (big oil) are trying to boost the price OR as I believe most people who post on TOD are trying to warn people to get into a low fossil fuel mode of living as the best possible preperation for the future that is upon us. I find that the latter group of people are subject to the most attacks. IMHO this is an effort to maintain the status quo by people who may be paid by powerful interests. I think there is alot of thought-out tactics being applied in many difererent areas.
Take ethanol. It has been debated often here that the EROEI is very low (1.3:1). If you assume that the invested energy is fossil in nature then I propose this is political slight of hand. Politicians can look good to the masses that we are doing something to curb imported oil at the same time appease the ME that we will not become "energy independant"(i.e. they will not loose thier oil junkies) because the return(1.3:1) is so low that giving possible total volumes of ethanol this will do very little. Everybody is happy, oil producers, corn belt farmers, politicians(who now look good to the public) and the voters who "know" someone is doing something about "our problem".
I take a "stepback from the details" viewpoint. There are alot of good posters here that do great with graphs, data, and such. The longer term picture IMHO is rather bleak. This to me is so overwhelming obvious that I also find the nit picking fighting to be a great distraction and a great diservice to where we need to go from this point forwards. This is serious stuff.
I read the best quote today in the Readers Digest.
To say that your fate is not tied to my fate is like saying "Your end of the boat is sinking" (R.D.Hugh Downs).
Applies to the debate here and should explain the bickering that takes place here. I'm sure I ruffle feathers here as well. If I'm a trasher or a trashee is a matter of perspective.
The US has been led by powerful selfserving interests for many decades. The unsustainable urban sprawl that has been built up will evetually wither under a lack of cheap fosil fuel. The ramifications of this are subject to wide and wild estimations. The powers that be know that they are in a strugle to maintain the status quo wether it is sustainable or not does not matter. They will find ways to argue thier points to maintain thier identity as a bussiness leader, ceo, economic power, or whatever. The populance will be the ones who pick up the pieces from thier decisions. To this I think it is important to argue for the hearts and minds of people to get them ready for the inevitable. I think we are past the point where we can do this easily, delaying it futher will only make the correction(s) harsher.
Thrash away...
D
The Oil Drum is a web site, not an agent of government or of a financial corporation, and has no obligation to avoid conflicts of interest, if any. I know this has been addressed before, but if RR has a conflict of interest, so what. Any apparent conflict is obvious to all and, therefore, as responsible adults, they should be capable of approaching his analysis with a certain degree of skepticism. His posts, however, stand on their own and he doesn't use any "secret" inside information to try to sell his point of view. His facts and his analysis are transparent to all. Anyone here is free to point out the fallacies in his analysis. If you have a problem with his analysis or his fact, then by all means jump in. I'm sure many of us here would like to hear a reasoned riposte to RR's posts. It would be nice if ethanol, for example, was a viable and sustainable alternative to oil. By all means, prove this, and attempt to refute people like RR.
If people are pushing stocks on this site, and they are not providing facts to back up these stocks, then caveat emptor. It is not the obligation of this site to protect unwary investors from their own stupidity or lack of due diligence.
If there are people here who would like to make money off of oil stocks of futures, and if they can provide persuasive arguments to demonstrate that their is an oil shortage, then attack their arguments, not their interests. In any event, I seriously doubt that anyone here would have the ability to either alter the oil markets or the fortunes of the oil companies. Anyone who has frequented any of the various stock sites realizes how pointless it is to either trumpet or degrade a commoidity or a corporation. The market is just too big for that.
The oil industry has an interest in ensuring that we operate under the illusion that oil can serve our needs for the indefinite future. If the Oil Drum is devoted to their interests, then it is doing a piss poor job. If anything, the Oil Drum is devoted to convinving people that their is not much of a future for oil or the oil companies.
I am interested in gaining massive personal wealth. Would someone please advise me as to where I can go to acquire same. Thus far, this site has done more to decrease my wealth than increase it.
As a merely factual note - when talking about the timing of peak, RR has noted sources of information which he can't share. I find this reasonable, and understandable, and he doesn't 'use' it, but he has, in the past, alluded to it.
However, this flood of oil still seems to be in the future, just like it was a year ago.
Again, this is merely a factual note, and is truly the only use/non-use of inside information that I recall in his case.
Many of the posters claiming knowledge have similar restraints, obviously.
I am interested in gaining massive personal wealth. Would someone please advise me as to where I can go to acquire same. Thus far, this site has done more to decrease my wealth than increase it.
I haven't been a member of this forum long, can you please elaborate how this TOD has decreased your wealth?
Also, I really haven't seen very many people on TOD push any specific investment strategy. I've asked several questions regarding specific investments, and have received very little in response. The stuff I have seen is more geared towards paying down/off debt and becoming more 'substainable' post peak. This advice seems extremely wise to me, regardless of your overall outlook. And that is coming from a person who is fairly more optimistic about our future situation than most that post on TOD.
SelfAggrandizedTrader suggested on this site that oil was ripe for shorting last summer when it spiked up to $78 with the Israel-Lebanon war. People who followed his advice made a bundle. There is a lot of good trading analysis on the site, but you still have to make your own calls.
I am more of a long term investor than a trader myself. My oil positions went up and down in 2006 to end up pretty much where they started, but I made huge profits in silver, wind energy, and uranium, all of which I have suggested many times.
My comment was somewhat tongue in cheek. However, if one were to conclude that peak oil had already occurred or was about to, one would tend to put some money in some sort of oil play. This would not have been a good strategy for the last several months as oil has experienced a rather significant decline in price.
Hello tstreet,
The Oil Drum also has no obligation to present the truth regarding Peak Oil or any other subject either in these threads or in the articles posted here as authoritative. There are no standards of morality or ethics which would apply to a blog, nor to its posters, nor especially to anonymous posters who behave as if they are experts and are therefore giving reliable advice.
For that reason it logically follows that The Oil Drum is not an authoritative source of information regarding Peak Oil, ethanol, global warming, environmentalism, legislation impacting the oil industry, or any other subject. Those who come to The Oil Drum looking for objective information about any of these subjects will not find it here.
Yet people do seem to behave as if The Oil Drum is authoritative, objective, reliable and trustworthy. They really should know better, but The Oil Drum often does present itself as possessing these virtues in contrast to the mainstream media and other sources of information.
Don't you see how this is a very important subject?
No one can judge the reliability of any information presented here without knowing for certain (1). The authorship of the material, and (2). Any conflicts of interest which might exist, explicitly stated.
Is that too much to ask? It is merely the bare minimum.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
If TOD is such a poor source of information, then, why do you visit?
Is it just to offer dissent?
Is it just to correct the flawed perspectives of others?
Is it just to show off your logic and arguing skills?
If you answer yes to 2 out of 3, take a look in the mirror. Because, even if you don't agree with the conclusion, even if you don't see it in yourself, if you answered yes to 2 out of 3, the fact is most netizens will see you as a troll...
You don't need to come back here if you think it's a bad source of information. You don't need to take it upon yourself to save us from our miserably poor and undiscerning intellects.
I'm not saying this to you Dave so much as all those folks who repeatedly turn up here, proudly offering dissenting views in rude and obtuse ways, and who not only appear to tolerate the commotion they begin but appear to actually enjoy it.
It is possible, horrible as it may seem to you, to discuss the arguments presented without resorting to questioning the motives of the presenter. It is called 'evaluating the argument on its merits', and has the useful feature of not entering infinite regress, as is possible when everyone is free to question the motives of all others.
I'd like to throw my hat into the ring, and vote for soem kind of self-selection of post viewability. The model i'd like to see is the 'ignore' model, whereby posts made by 'ignored' posters are omitted, and all child posts to those omitted posts are naturally omitted also.
This model is simple, efficient, and maintains thread integrity.
Although this would reduce the number of posts I would see dramatically, this would be terrific for me personally. I stopped taking an strong interest in the user comments section a fair while ago, as the trolling load increased. I still read through occasionally in the vain hope that things have improved, but to my disdain, things appear to have got dramatically worse. I normally wouldn't waste the communities time with such a long off-topic (nothing to do with oil) post, but the standard has dropped to such a low level that it cannot be decreased by any post which maintains a respectful tone, which I hope to have done.
Lest I be soley negative, a big 'thank you' goes out to the contributers, who keep me coming back in spite of the nonsense in the user comments section. Thanks also to Leanan, your efforts are greatly appreciated.
Hello Dot,
There is no extraordinary burden in requesting ethical people to behave in an ethical manner. I question The Oil Drum's objectivity simply because the behavior of certain people featured prominently here does not appear objective.
Do you suppose that the editors & contributors here are above criticism? How is that at all possible given the great criticisms that they heap upon others.
I would like to see some evidence of objectivity and ethics at The Oil Drum. It is not a lot to ask although it would seem so by the extremely negative reaction of certain individuals.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
Hello David,
Nice picture of the baby elephant BTW. (How do you "objectively" know that it is "happy"?)
That said, I think the main point about TOD is that it often shows real people acting as emotional creatures here, getting pissed off at each other but still listening to the other guy's opinions (because why else would they get pissed off other than that they are listening and give a care as to what is being said?).
I think the word you were looking for was "civility", not "ethics". I respectfully submit to you that most posters here are civil to each other. You see a lot less cussin and downright meaness here at TOD than you might see at many other blogs/forums.
Just as a minor aside, the other day the "authoritative" MSM of NYT reported about a "breakthrough" in Silicon Valley. I work in Silicon Valley. Give me a break. These reporters are so clueless that they start frothing at the mouth about "hi-k metals". They probably feel real proud of themselves in spouting off techno-jargon. Except one minor problem for these clueless salivating "jounalists", the term "hi-k" refers to the high dielectric constant of certain ferroelectric insulators and not to "metals". Maybe some English major editor at NYT who flunked his/her chemistry courses decided to shorten "metal oxides" to "metals" so as to reduce the copy size. Who knows? One thing I know is that when MSM starts blabbering about stuff that I'm knowledgeable in (oil is not one of them), 99% of the time MSM is getting it all wrong.
So that is why I prefer to go to knowledgeable blog sites like TOD rather than ever trusting MSM.
MSM is the "Least Trustable" source of information.
This is not to say that all blogs or bloggers are trustable. But I think here at TOD you get a lot of trustable information about the energy situation.
And if anyone is way out of line, you get a lot of voices pouncing on him/her to set the record straight. :-)
Oh yes,
I almost forgot.
Here at TOD, the "stupid", subjective-information sucking nuts insist on people backing up their own frothings with citations to supporting evidence. So you want some back up to my rant on "Hi-K"? OK here and here you go.
Now you can evaluate my frothings more "objectively" because you can cross check with independent sources of information --as opposed to simply trusting the corporate bought and owned MSM outlets. :-)
Cheers.
p.p.s. for those of you who are chip geeks, it looks like the Intel versus IBM "breakthroughs" involve hafnium based compounds. IMHO (I don't know for sure) it looks like that found a way to reliably form hi-k hafnium silicates although it could instead be hafnium oxide (wiki page updated January 27th). The Intel supplied picture at the NYT site suggests a hafnium silicate.
You may be interested in a slashdot.org, this piece of news was discussed there recently, by geeks no less:).
Today's EE Times indicates that Intel's process will include copper interconnect. Hmmm. So that means they will probably need a barrier metal. Looks like it's heading for a complicated gate stack: Si/HfSi/HfTi/Ti/Cu ??? (The titanium hafnium alloy is just a wild guess.)
Some more deep tech on this off topic stream:
David Kanter analysis here
Stepback,
I agree 100%.
You nailed it.
airdale
David, I respectfully disagree with part of your statement:
Authoritative Source? You're probably right in that TOD does not have any authority granted by government or industry or other official agency.
TOD does not make, nor even claim to make authoritative statements. From the FAQ:
However, I dissagree with your statement where it comes to objective information. TOD is (IMHO) simply the best place on the web to find objective information about energy. I spend too much time here because of the outstanding flow of objective information, and the reasoned and deep analysis and of that information.
Why do I come to TOD? The reason has changed over the years. I first came after reading Kunstler's The Long Emergency in search of evidence that would ease my mind. The evidence I found in the objective data flow didn't lead in that direction. Over time, my focus shifted to the post-peak time frame, 100 years from now. TOD has provided great data and links on renewable energy, which is were we will be in 100 years.
Now, I might be a happier person if I could just ignore the coming transition and spend my time at ESPN.com, but I can't. (Oh, dang you Kunstler!) The choices I personally make - political, economical, and ecological are guided by the objective information flow at TOD. (Yes, I drive a Prius, and I drive it a lot fewer miles than I would if not informed by TOD).
'The Oil Drum is a website devoted to the oil industry's interests' - well, always nice to see a truly dissenting opinion, something Hothgor finds sorely lacking.
But I still wonder about your focus -
'What is also of great concern to me is that there are many instances of where individuals have given investment advice here on The Oil Drum. I wonder about the ethics of such advice. There are undoubtedly conflicts of interests involved.'
This is some open Internet forum - I still utterly fail to see any 'conflicts of interest' in the sense you seem to understand it. There are a lot of interests here - are you conflicted by this fact?
People write, other people read - seems like a basic principle of human interaction, unless you are one of those people who thinks 'sheeple' is somehow more accurate than 'consumer' in describing their fellow citizens.
Marco,
I found it interesting that Hothgor appeared on the scene, with a near constant stream of personal attacks on me, about two weeks after I debated ExxonMobil, et al, on a PBS program regarding Peak Oil.
I also found it interesting that David Mathews appeared on the scene, with a near constant stream of personal attacks on Robert, just as we started seeing a big push for ethanol production and subsidies.
Hello Westexas,
Maybe you both are suffering from delusions of grandeur. The world doesn't rotate around The Oil Drum nor its most prominent participants.
I showed up on the scene specifically becaause of something that Chris Vernon said regarding burning up the rest of the world's oil and natural gas. You can verify that easily enough.
And I actually have had an account here at The Oil Drum for over a year. The discussions here were always so horrendous that I never felt any compelling reason to partipate.
As to Robert Rapier, have you considered the possibility that I want to argue with him over theology and creationism?
My only interest in Robert Rapier is in his open advocacy of an oil corporation's interests both here and elsewhere. Ethanol is a really bad idea but hobbying & lobbying for an oil corporation is much worse.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
A good investigator cross refrences. A do not need to take as gospel what Robert or Westexas or Ron say. Yes they *may* have vested interest but as long as I have the power of thought I have a whole arsenal of techniques for reading between the lines and deducing fiction from fact.
Marco.
For the record.
I am retired and have no vested interest in anything except my Social Security check and my small stipend from Boeing. I am not even an investor in stocks or commodities, though I did engage in these activities in the past. I was even a broker for about six months, an endeavor at which I failed miserably. I soon learned that the term "Stock Broker" was just a fancy term for "Salesman". I was expected to pick up the phone and cold call people and sell them stocks, bonds or commodity futures. I absolutely hated the job because I did not have the ability, or the gall, to do that.
However I did work for the world's largest oil company, Aramco, for five years. Those five years in Saudi Arabia gave me, in my opinion anyway, a very deep insight into the Arabian mind. (Flames are coming from the politically correct but I don't give a shit.)
The Middle East Arabian culture is dramatically different from our own. It would be impossible to explain this short of a book so I will not attempt to do. But I will say that I mixed with the natives far more than did most Aramcons. I have sat in their houses and drank wine and sadiki with them. Virtually all Saudis that work for Aramco speak fluent English. Even their older children would speak English when they came into the room. Male children only of course. Females were never ever seen on these visits. But I digress. I started out explaining that I have no ax to grind and wound up telling you that I do.
And that is that nothing that comes out of Saudi Arabia can be taken at face value. We don't really know how much oil Saudi really produces because their published production figures are not reliable. We don't know how much oil each field produces because those figures are guarded like state secrets. Most news coming from Saudi officials are widely optimistic. "We can produce 12.5 mb/d for fifty years" or other such nonsense. I find it mind blowing that some people actually believe that crap. Rule of thumb, if the news is wildly optimistic, discount it completely.
On the other hand bad news is given up only very reluctantly. If a Saudi gives up news that is not wildly optimistic, he usually has a very good reason for doing so. He is likely covering his ass for even worse news that he knows is soon to follow. After all, there reaches a time when the obvious simply can no longer be denied.
I am predicting a catastrophic collapse of Saudi Oil production, beginning this year. In fact it has already begun but the news is just starting to sink in to some people. Others of course will still be denying it years from now.
There, I have said it and I will eat crow if I am wrong.
Ron Patterson
IMO, the Economist Magazine--the guys who predicted $5 Oil Practically Forever, in 1999--all but guaranteed a Saudi production collapse when they asserted, in August of 2006, that Saudi Arabia could produce at its then current rate for more than 70 years--without ever finding another drop of oil.
As I said, the Peak Oil guys are the cultists?
Well invite me over too. I'll bring the adult beverages and some salt for the crow.
Ron, why no investments? Is this a moral decision, or do you just not want to risk your assets because of your beliefs regarding total collapse?
Although much of my current portfolio is made up of companies doing business in the petroleum industry, if you're correct I guess these would end up being worthless rather quickly. Hopefully, I'm correct in that peak liquids is an event that unfolds over the span of decades, versus the shorter time frame and severity that you and WT foresee - otherwise I'm going to broke, and soon :)
Austex, no the investment decision was not a moral decision, it was a financial one. Actually I do own a bit of real estate, two and one half houses and a bit of land, and one old sailboat. But after a lot of personal problems and my wife's medical problems, I was left with nothing to invest.
But I live very comfortably. I do as I wish every hour of the day and am virtually debt free. Hell, it just don't get any better than that.
I also have very good bourbon. That helps a lot when I contemplate the future of the world.
Ron Patterson
I prefer Maker's Mark myself. It don't get much better than that.
Attempting to live debt free is always a wise decision, I wish I could convince more people I know to see the light. Hard assets should do well in the inflationary environment we are sure to have over the next couple of decades, and the land may come in handy if the TS does hit the fan.
One thing I need to put on my list of to do's is to learn how to make some good sauce.
In the current issue of Barron's, Marc Faber recommends farmland, among other things. He described the 30 year US Treasury bond as "The world's worst investment."
Haven't read the article, but I agree with his assessment for t-bills. US treasury bond prices have not been priced according to their fundamentals for an extended period now.
Farm land does seem like a good investment and I would love to have a nice chunk of land, however I'm not ready for it yet. Having grown around ranching, I have some respect regarding the amount of work that goes into maintaining a piece of property, much less profiting off of it. I simply don't have the time right now
Guess my optimistic side is hoping that when times really get hard and I no longer have my day job, and did have the time, I can cash some of those oil stocks and pick some up some foreclosed land on the cheap. If only life turned out like we planned.......
Makers Mark,,it gets a lot of good PR but I find it rather uninteresting.
I would much prefer Wild Turkey but for my usual consumption is remains Evan Williams. Reasonable price and decent bourbon.
I used to live in a county that boasted at least 6 or so distilleries. I lived a mile from one of them. The odor of good sour mash cooking off would flow down the hollers and come down my chimney, leading me to always have a decent bottle or two of bourbon handy.
I much prefer white mule when available. Not always easy to obtain.
Once you get a good swaller of white liquor made right you never forget it. It sets the standard. None made commercially can come close.
Scotch is way too expensive so Evan Williams it is. Wild Turkey as the mood strikes. Markers Mark...to each his own.
Four Roses is good but only sold in Kentucky, Indiana and Japan. For the Japanese brought the distillery in Anderson Cty. Just because they wanted a good supply of Four Roses. I said GOOD not real good.
Most of the rest is just PR ripoff IMO. Lots of erroneous labeling and advertising.
I used to live in a county that boasted at least 6 or so distilleries. I lived a mile from one of them. The odor of good sour mash cooking off would flow down the hollers....
I used to live in such a county except the smell was coming from certain basements, garages, outbuildings and the occasional woods... ;-)
Love your posts Airdale,
Keep 'em coming,
Rude
Hello Ron, and WT too,
I value the work you two guys have done. I think you have provided a tremendous public service by doing the best you can with the data you have got. Even if C + C spikes higher in the later years to come--you have started building the essential tools and models to analyze the future results with a tighter focus. If C + C peak is 2005, now, or within the next two years-- considering how hard it is to get accurate data-- in my book: you will both be vindicated and worthy of national recognition for being the 'early birds' with Deffeyes & Simmons.
I value RR's contribution equally--I think he has done an outstanding job of pointing out weaknesses in your approaches--forcing you guys to dig for more data and create more models to help strengthen these weaknesses. All of us TODers should thx RR for his desire that the Peak argument should be scientifically airtight as possible even with the spurious data. I know you and WT are constantly thinking of ways to make this so.
Positing Peakoil now is the much harder task versus Peakoil later. That recent post of the link whereby KSA was only 30% depleted, if actually true, would lead one to think that KSA would welcome a full audit, as Simmons suggests, to prove this fact. Just think how many lives that would save as the rising conflicts around the globe would abate. Alas, it is not meant to be, but your efforts to posit Peakoil now is making many conserve, which will help save the lives of many going forward. For this we should all be grateful.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Thank you, Darwinian. I appreciate your insights. They sound reasonable and well founded. We would do well to listen to you.
Ron, just curious about the wine thing, I thought that alcohol of any kind was banned from SA. I've had friends tell me that they would make beer in the bathtub within the compounds where they lived, but woe be to anyone caught with it. Perhaps you refer to non-alcholic wine?
GJ, alcohol is banned in Saudi Arabia. Yet is readily available to just about everyone. There was no such thing as non-alcholic wine, though you could buy non-alcohlic beer in the commassary.
No one made beer in the bathtub. Beer was usually made in a 10 gallon plastic garbage can before putting in bottles. We made wine in a five gallon gerry can. We bottled it just before it was done and it usually made a very fine sparkling wine. Grape juice came in one liter bottles with a re-sealable cap. You know, the wire clips that you could re-clip and seal the bottle. We would buy the grape juice, make the wine and then put the wine right back into the same bottles.
Sadiki, which is the Arabic word for "friend", is hard liquor made distilled from pure sugar. It can be aged, for a few weeks in wood chips and you get what we called "brown". Brown was the good stuff. But the clear was just fine. It was actually a 190 proof alcohol, or close to that anyway, which we cut in half with water. When mixed with soda or something else, you could not tell it from vodka.
Many Aramcons had, and still do have, their own still. Occasionally an Aramcon lets his still stay on too long, the room, usually the garage, fills with alcohol fumes, the paniced Aramcon kicks the main breaker, creating a spark and the place blows up. That happens once or twice a year. The offending employee is fired and sent home, but nothing worse than that. Fortunately I never heard of anyone getting killed that way.
Once in Ras Tanura it happened to a man who lived on the beach. The man grabbed the still and drug it out into the sea. Unfortunately it was at high tide. The next morning there sat his still in about six inches of water because the tide had gone out.
Making beer or wine was not a serious crime. I never heard of anyone getting caught making beer or wine and being fired because of it. Only when someone blew up their house were they fired and sent home.
But I never drank so much as I did during my five years in Saudi. We had nothing to do but have parties and get drunk. Of course a lot of other things went on as well. There was reports of wife swapping and such, but I wouldn't know about any of that. :-)
Ron Patterson
Ron, in my line of work I've worked with people from all over the world, however have never had the opportunity to work or be around someone from Saudi Arabia. In your opinion, how does the common person there view the rest of the world? The only thing I've seen are video clips of protests and flag burning sessions, but common sense tells me this isn't the whole story and some of it is undoubtedly staged. Anyways, just curious...
Austex, I left Saudi Arabia in 1985 so I am sure attitudes have changed much since then. Dubya has seen to that. But when I was there we were respected but still thought of as infidels.
At any rate Saudis kept their politics to themselves. You got the feeling that they were resentful of the Monarchy as well as the rest of the royal family. Yet no one would dare speak opeanly against them. I discussed a lot of things with the Saudis but never politics. I did discuss religion often but not in the way you might think. I would ask a lot of questions but would never dare criticize them. My questions led them to believe that I had great respect for Islam and just might convert if they told me enough about it.
But I met no one that really hated America or Americans. At least they never let on if they did.
Ron Patterson
Ron - How are the Shia viewed in KSA? My understanding is that they are very much second class citizens but I cannot find any info to substantiate that of give a clear picture of the actual relationship between the two religious groups.
There is also a Catch 22 with saying TOD is "an oil insider's website".
The people that know the situation best are the ones that have:
1 - Currently working or have worked in the industry.
2 - Taught or are currently teaching about petrogeology.
3 - Know someone that has worked or taught in this area and is privy to inside information.
4 - Government elites of powerful nations.
Now, having said this, I am someone that doesn't belong to any of the above groups. Group #4 is not going to talk about the situation out in the open. Group #3 may have some good information but it is second generation information and less reliable. Group #2 has an expert knowledge of the theory and probably some experience or friends in the industry, but their "on the ground" information may be dated. Group #1 has the BEST access to information on PO, but may have conflicting interests. Then again, they may not.
Group #1 is the most desirable source for update information, but at the same time we are not always %100 sure of their motivations. I would rather take whatever information comes from Group #1 and analyze it (as Marco says, "A good investigator cross refrences").
Finally remember that even "spun" or misleading information can be used to deduce the overall picture of things.
So, in conclusion, I will take information from all groups listed above and make my own conclusions. I value the information coming from any oil industry insider immensely (speaking of which, where is our friend Down Under?)
Hello Mathew,
Next time when You buy a gasoline or do a shopping, please consider that many people posting on this site have made it possible, some in oil extraction, some in oil refining.
Hello paidtroll,
I am well aware of -- and horrified by -- all the crimes committed on my behalf by America's corporate and political interests. You people have made a mess of the world. You people have transformed the Earth into humankind's sewer. And for what? So the American public can remain fat & happy & distracted by a million worthless trinkets on sale at tha mall.
Thanks a lot, oil industry. Thanks a lot.
But you should know that this whole civilization -- including the gasoline for the cars and the consumer goods available for the shoppers -- is passing away. When it is all gone, what will future generations of humans inherit from this one?
As for myself, I prefer a living, healthy world to a world in which Americans can drive & shop.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
Hello David (sorry, misspelt Your name before)
Yes, I also prefer European lifestyle to the American lifestyle (disclaimer, I've never been in US myself).
As to Robert Rapier, have you considered the possibility that I want to argue with him over theology and creationism?
If you want to argue theology and creationism with him you are at the wrong site.
My only interest in Robert Rapier is in his open advocacy of an oil corporation's interests both here and elsewhere. Ethanol is a really bad idea but hobbying & lobbying for an oil corporation is much worse.
You make a pretty large error here, as RR's track record of posting should preclude that opinion. Yes, he does work for an oil company and has been completely open about that, but he advocates moving away from fossil fuels. What he does not advocate is using fool's solutions to the problem (corn ethanol), and solutions which would take too long to implement that society would collapse in the meantime (though he is in favor of them long term).
The Oil Drum is a website devoted to the oil industry's interests. And it has always served the interests of the oil corporations.
It would appear that you are the one with the hidden agenda, and as such may be projecting your own paranoia of hidden motives onto Robert.
Hello Substrate,
I was just joking, Substrate. But plenty of people have argued theology on these daily threads. And there are plenty of instances where people have bashed religion for no reason except their own prejudice and hate.
I have no issue with Robert Rapier's opposition to ethanol. My issue in with the existence of a conflict of interest. In struggling against ethanol here and elsewhere, Robert Rapier appears to be advocating on behalf of his employer and industry. Therefore his objectivity is questionable.
And he is not the only person here who has a conflict of interest. I'd guess that plenty of the posters here have conflicts of interests. The most terrible of these include the oil futures traders who seem to want to pump up the value of oil on behalf of their potential future wealth. How trustworthy is a Peak Oil message coming from such individuals? Not very trustworthy at all.
Objectivity is the one rare commodity which is nearly absent from The Oil Drum. Everyone who reads these discussions should keep that in mind because the advice here is not always reliable nor always good.
I do have a hidden agenda: I'd love to see the end of the fossil fuel industries. Oil, coal, natural gas ... the sooner that these industries go extinct, the better. If humans are so dependent upon these exhaustible resources that their exhaustion means extinction, then that's just too bad for humankind.
Humans have already transformed the Earth into humankind's sewer. We really should stop. But we won't. So Homo sapiens will go extinct but the sun will keep on rising, like it has done so reliably for the last four and a half billion years.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
Dave, you are an interesting fellow. I have a few questions if you don't mind.
Do you own a car?
Do you work and commute?
Do you have gas heat in your house?
Other than the complete extinction of the human race, what future would you like for our species?
Hello enviro attny,
> Do you own a car?
Yes. Life in Florida is nearly impossible without a car. I know because I spent nearly ten years without a car.
> Do you work and commute?
I work. I commute four miles to work & back, and have done so for the last twelve years.
> Do you have gas heat in your house?
No. I live in Florida. Mild winter weather makes gas heating unnecessary. I use the air conditioner as often as the heater during Florida's winter, except this year I have used the air conditioner much more often.
> Other than the complete extinction of the human race, what future would you like for our species?
I don't see any future for the human species at all. I simply have no faith in humankind's ability to resolve its problems and reform its evil behaviors. Even if such changes were to commence globally now it is "too little, too late" for humankind.
There are plenty of animals of that survived for millions of years. None of these animals ever became addicted to oil consumption, technology or warfare. Humans are also, generally speaking, unfit, unhealthy, and unable to survive without all of these technological crutches. We've really put our species in a bad situation and I doubt that the species has the wisdom to escape from the clutches of natural selection.
So much for humankind. Would you prefer that humans conquered the Universe and explored the stars as portrayed in such fantasies as Star Trek?
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
And the band played on.
Once again nitpicking, chest thumping, and social wrangling takes away from the absolute fact of our civilization's imminent dark age.
I don't care about trolls or otherwise. My main problem is with people ignoring the overarching problem in order to focus on their particular little niche concerns.
Hear that? There is a knocking at the door. Why it's our old friends: war, famine, pestilence, and disease. Welcome. Come in. Mind your heads. Come watch the debate. Watch the fools argue about toys and pride and Robert's Rules of Order even as the scythe comes for their straining necks.
What fun!!
"Watch the fools argue about toys and pride and Robert's Rules of Order even as the scythe comes for their straining necks."
Cherenkov, that was sublime! I just had to say it.
just like the saying in the upper right hand corner of the site.
"men argue, nature acts"
voltare(spelling?)
OK. So you know, I know and everyone knows that Robert Rapier works for an oil corporation. So what? Take that into consideration when you form your opinion. You don't have to read what he writes. You don't have to believe everything he says. Do some research, some analysis and then form your opinion.
To tell you the truth I am really getting tired of your holier-than-thou attitude and hatred for mankind. You consume oil and oil based products like everyone else; then you condemn the oil industry for satisfying *your* demands. Are you a hypocrite or what?
For your information, neither me nor anyone in my family works for the oil industry.
Hello Suyog,
What other choice does an American have except to live this particular lifestyle of oil addiction and insatiable consumerism? The United States of America sold its soul to the automobile and there is no going back. The hyperconsumer lifestyle is the engine which keeps our economy going, if Americans practiced self-restraint this economy would collapse.
Don't you see that there are no other options available?
This is why catastrophe is inevitable. At some point, both oil addiction and consumerism will come to an end. What sort of economy will Americans possess then?
As to the question of hatred of mankind: I don't hate humankind but there is no doubt whatsoever that the species is behaving in a foolish & self-destructive & planet-destroying manner. Such behaviors are not compatible with our species surviving very long in the Universe.
Given that there is only one planet hospitable to human life in the Universe, I believe that our species should have behaved in a more cautious manner. Of all the animals which have ever inhabited the Earth, only one has become addicted to oil & overrun the planet with overpopulation and pollution. Does anyone really believe that these behaviors can have anything else except for a tragic outcome?
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
I think you are right WT, If you look back over the threads for a week, you will see the aim is to distroy the thread by poluting it. New people who want to learn dislike a high noise level when looking into a new subject or new board. They know this.
The goal is two fold, individual, and site. Make TOD give a bad first taste to new people.
One more time, look at hte following techniques in one browser, and scan thru a couple threads in another session and see how many techniques you see being used. Goto the link to read a paragraph on how each are used.
For example Read up on, 7. Question motives
Remember the attack on Deffery(??) a couple days ago about his stock options.
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil
2. Become incredulous and indignant
3. Create rumor mongers
4. Use a straw man
5. Sidetrack opponents w name calling, ridicule
6. Hit and Run
7. Question motives
8. Invoke authority
9. Play Dumb
10. Associate opponent charges with old news
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions
12. Enigmas have no solution
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic
14. Demand complete solutions
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses
17. Change the subject
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad
19. Ignore facts, demand impossible proofs
20. False evidence
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor
22. Manufacture a new truth
23. Create bigger distractions
24. Silence critics
25. Vanish
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=25+rules+of+disinformation
http://www.proparanoid.net/truth.htm
Re: flamers
Although it may be very hard to resist I suggest not engaging these people. Keep a mental note of who they are and have the discipline to ignore them. They thrive on the attention they bring.
I can ignore easily and read on; but with each abusive post I become less and less inclined to recommend this otherwise excellent forum. If in fact it is true that some of the flamers are in it for the sole purpose of discrediting the information on this site and have their own agendas (and there are big forces in play here) then I would like to see more moderation. But as leanan pointed out this is an intensive task.
Marco.
It is primarily up to people like RR and West Texas to ignore the flamers. They are the ones primarily being attacked and defending themselves. They need to know those of us who pay attention have the utmost respect for their knowledge and contribution even when they disagree with each other. They need to trust that the rest of the community is very aware who the disruptors are. They don't need to lower themselves to false debates.
.
Agreed. Even banning is attention.
That's one good thing about a user-rating system. Downrated posts become invisible, which removes the incentive for trolls to post. The public can't see their messages, and if anyone replies, the troll can't see it. No feedback.
So the community shuns those who disagree with it -- yes, I'm going to recomment this site because it's a doomer's site. Personally, I find some of the earnest but WRONG posts more of a problem than I do the argumentative ones.
That is a worry, and it's the reason I was against user-moderation at first.
But I think the people here are rational enough to refrain from troll-rating posts just because they disagree with the content. Typically, it only takes one or two high ratings to offset a lot of troll ratings, so even if a few people get carried away, the post will remain visible.
And this is not a doomer site. PeakOil.com is a doomer site. LATOC is a doomer site. I would say most of the staff here are not doomers. Do a lot of doomers post here? Sure. But I don't think they would silence other views. As long as they were expressed with civility.
heh. i do not know how old you are but in my short 25 years of life i have learned one thing.
No one is completely rational, a user run rating system depends on that impossibility. adding it here will just turn the place into 'my [censored] is bigger then your [censored] because my posts are default rated higher then yours thus my opinion is truth'.
don't believe me? take one day and read slashdot.
you will find that idiots get their posts rated higher then those who actually know what they are talking about.
post #1
apple is teh god of computers. or some such stuff that can be discounted with a few minutes of fact checking. this post does not include sources.
post #2
lengthy post with sources showing that apple is no better then any other computer manufacturer, and in some cases(like the ipod) is basically the worst for everything but marketing.
post one gets rated +5 insightful. the second post ends up being rated -1 troll in a short order.
rationality makes no appearance, it's all about the emotions of the reader. the user rated system is like a positive feedback loop that increases this effect.
end result, slashdot is the 'laughing stock' of the internet for information about computers and tech in general. do you honestly want this to happen here?
PeakOil.com is more survivalist in a bunker oriented then 'doomer'* and LATOC is well more blunt then it should be though it does get the basic information across.
------
ideally i would like the site not to hide anything by default. users would be able to collapse/roll-up posts showing only the title if they themselves do not want to read it. though in no way what so EVER should users be allowed to control what can be viewed as default.
i have also learned that categorizing sites into 'what i will show (insert person here)' and 'what i will not show (insert person here)' is a very nasty form of censorship. your using the site in question as a form of propaganda to further your position and at the same time you insult the person by suggesting they can't make up their own mind.
-------
*:this is using the definition applied mainly here that is used as a insult to people who suggest that bad things do and will happen, that there are limits to things including human ingenuity, some events even of human origin cannot be changed but can only be lived through. basicly applied to anyone who does not make the person who slings the insult 'feel good'
Who said anything about completely rational? That's the beauty of a user-rating system. Nobody has to be completely rational, because it's not up to one person.
That doesn't matter. As long as the posts remain visible, who cares how they rate in comparison with each other?
I know a user-rating system is not perfect, but at this point, it's the lesser of two evils. We cannot continue as we are. Every Internet forum eventually reaches this point. We have to choose two of the following three: continued growth, freedom of speech, usefulness. We can't have it all.
Disagree. It's something that many people are requesting. They are embarrassed to refer people to this site because of the flamewars in the comments.
It's not like we're the government. It's a privately owned site. Anyone is free to set up a privately-owned site where they can express their own point of view.
Leanan,
I can deal with the flames and other stuff on DrumBeat. But what has driven me crazy is thread hijacking on single topic threads! I responded to a thread hijack the other day because I was so PO'd by the poster. I finally posted that if the poster wanted to continue the discussion to repost on DrumBeat - which she/he didn't do. But my action still added to the total thread drift.
My concern is that a slashdot rating system will not necessarily stop this sort of stuff if aneough people find it interesting.
Todd
Edit to take out bold that went on forever.
"Although it may be very hard to resist I suggest not engaging these people."
You said it, and I am a sucker for it. I do keep a mental note, but sometimes the flesh is weak. I really, really wish we had an "ignore" feature, but Leanan's idea of a Slash-type moderation system might be even better.
My impression is that those who are considered to be trolls are fed regularly and plentifully. These so called flame wars go on for dozens of posts until they run out of oxygen, as it were. An ignore button would be useful. In the mean time, my approach is to not read them and to scroll past them as quickly as possible.
Perhaps if the trolls weren't fed so well here, they would go elsewhere. But still, I realize it is awfully tempting to respond. I guess people assume that if they do not respond that it will be assumed that the trollish post has validity. In any event, ignoring the alleged trolls should be attempted for awhile to see the result.
I personally don't care what people post as the scroll function on my mouse is in fine working order.
tstreet,
Just the exact minute that someone posts to NOT FEED THE TROLLS..the very next post out of the box will be someone doing exactly what was just suggested NOT TO DO.
It happens here every single time.
Not only that all the troll has to do it create another ID and play the two IDs off against each other. One re-inforcing the other.One sometimes playing the devil and then the other way.
Its all been done as long as forums have existed. The trolls and shills and posers(those who POSE as others in order to muddle the waters) have their games down pat. The rest of us just walk into their webs and think everyone should and does play fairly.
Its a game to them and nothing but. To ace you out and make you look bad or keep badgering you until you are driven to make bad and discourteous statements when you finally lose your anger. They then win and you look bad and feel used.
I have been around this since before the net was birthed. On inter company forums. Even among professionals the trolls will come to feed. They are driven by psychological imperatives to seek pleasure at others helplessness. They thrive on forums just exactly like TOD. Like Leanan said, big audience to spew their garbage and no moderation.
I once enjoyed Slashdot /. but it soon became just like the guy upstream said it was.
You have to take a club and kill the beast. Cut out its heart and feed it to the dogs. Slash its throat and let it bleed out. Still their fingers will quiver for the touch of keyboard and mouse. Many of them I think start this game after they burn out on twitchgaming. They realized it was all fantasy and now they wish to test their wits on real people. Witness Hottie and the links found back to his twitchgame.
This afterall is their whole life. The rest is just something inbetween. This is how they know they are living. No one else is quite sure of that though. Usually to see them in person and in real life is upsetting. You can see them strolling the aisles of Best Buy and Circuit City. Vacant looks in their eyes, looking for POWER in the electronic toys on display. They read 2600 and dream dark fetid dreams. Cold pizza is their meat. Flat warm carbonated soft drinks are their liquid of choice. They never get to touch a good looking or rather any woman. They go to movies alone and in the dark. Sometimes they have bad body odors so no one will sit next to them. All they have ever done with their lives is live within a small area filled with a desktop and their link to the outside world. Most of everything they say is a lie. They usually have no jobs. They usually have not graduated from college. They are always nerdy in the extreme or into the Gothic venue. Bad hair, bad breath, bad attitude ,bad clothes and little to look forward to in real life. Another game to play remotely and surreptitiously in their pretend world.
NOTE: About halfway through this innocuous-to-be post turned into a rant.
This is just some of what they spew coming back at them and now I have to go wash my hands and be contrite for helping to make them feel worthwhile and to once more have scored a point or two.
Fighting trolls is usually a zero sum game. Using logic is useless. Asking them pertinent questions is a waste. Trying to appeal to their better half won't work.
"They read 2600 and dream dark fetid dreams. Cold pizza is their meat. Flat warm carbonated soft drinks are their liquid of choice. They never get to touch a good looking or rather any woman."
My gawdz, there is an burst of rather interesting literary outpourings this evening. I love it! It's not even the Full Moon!
(goes away shaking his head, muttering... "cold pizza is their meat, wow...")
Happy Saturday Night.
airdale,
Loved your rant. We know if they don't get attention they wither. Let them argue with themselves if they want to go through the trouble. They aren't going to get the satisfaction they crave unless they are getting a reaction from the people they are baiting. I would bet if RR and WT stopped reacting to their stalkers for a week we would see the shrillness increase out of desperation.
To keep disruptors from creating multiple id's, TOD could institute a one time no-refundable charge of $1 for anyone who wants to post. Then have them wait a week. Anyone can make up multiple email accounts, but multiple credit card names are harder to do.
Leanan, your headline article A prudent response to the science is behind a paywall.
Man, I hate it when they do that.
I removed it. It wasn't that great an article, anyway. I thought it was interesting because that's what a lot of people's response to peak oil and global warming will be: if we don't know for sure, let's not do anything drastic. Wouldn't be prudent.
Also, the culture wars of the U.S. seem to be heating up in Canada as well. :-P
Canada.com, which incudes half of that country's media, does little else. There's a window of a few hours, it seems.
Which reminds me, picked this gem up early this morning, it's still free:
Global warming may spell opportunity, not disaster, for Canada
That's why I posted the Guardian piece in this thread.
Which do you mean? I couldn't read the article.
Canada seems to be in a race-to-be-green these days.
The article compared the global warming debate with the nature vs. nurture homosexuality debate, and said something about how moral and spiritual concerns matter as much as science.
Just an off the wall question. Does the religous right ever consider that abortion and homosexuality essentially eliminates the opposition?
I would think they would be in favor of it or at least tolerate it better.
;)
Good morning everyone,
Here is an excellent example of the Orwellian doublespeak employed by corporate (mining) interests who employ people for the sake of public relations - lobbying. According to the editorial and the movie, the mining companies are looking out on behalf of the impoverished people of the Third World, and the environmentalists are the enemies of the impoverished:
The Forgotten Mammal
"Mine Your Own Business" tells story of the one animal environmentalists forget
By Mary Katharine Ham
Friday, January 26, 2007
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MaryKatharineHam/2007/01/26/the_forgo...
Notice in particular the statement:
Many of the filmmakers' critics cite their ties to big business—the mining company proposing the Rosia Montana mine, in particular—as reason to discount the film. Gabriel Resources funded much of the film, but McAleer and McElhinney—both self-proclaimed, proud "European liberals"—said they only agreed to do the film if the mining company was given no editorial input whatsoever. Much to their surprise, Gabriel Resources agreed, and didn't see the film until the day it was finished. McAleer said it's the first film he's worked on that wasn't altered by the funders.
Of course, when a corporation funds a film there's a pretty good chance that it will promote the corporation's interests. I am sure the filmmaker will insist that he is promoting a corporation's interests simply by coincidence.
But I don't believe in coincidences. People serve corporate interests for the sake of some benefit. I don't imagine that anyone volunteers on behalf of the oil corporations. Do you?
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
dmathew1,
I an on a dialup connect. Do you have any idea of the degradation causes by my viewing the TOD as a result of you abusive and lengthy cut&paste posting of material I could read(if I took a notion to) if you just supplied a URL for it?
You are the one who is making it difficult for those of us on slow dialup to take hours to view the various threads.
For those who DO have valuable data to share I will take the time and the resources to view it no matter what.
Your is unquestionably of little value. Please stop doing that.
Put in a few quoted lines if you must but stop with the huge cut&paste.
I don't read your trash but it still takes up a huge amount of precious bandwidth that is needed for others who have something of value to share. You don't.
airdale
Hello Airdale,
You should get a cable modem, Airdale. Dialup connections are ancient technology not suitable to life in the 21st century. Even the Australian aborigines have cable modems, how then are there Americans still living in the stone age with their dialup connections?
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
Many, many people cannot get cable or DSL. My son lives 10 minutes from a major city in Michigan. No cable. No DSL.
Then there is the cost. Not everybody can afford broadband over $ 6.50 for dialup.
Rick
"ancient technology not suitable to life in the 21st century."
A lot of things will not suit life in the 21st century if we do not
address the issue of energy depletion.
Just out of curiosity do you favour the scenario where society/humanity
it able to deal easily with a peak oil scenario and there will always
be replacements or are you of the camp that belives in a social meltdown?
Or somewhere inbetween? Apologies if you have stated your postion before.
Marco.
Hello Marco,
> Just out of curiosity do you favour the scenario where society/humanity it able to deal easily with a peak oil scenario and there will always be replacements or are you of the camp that belives in a social meltdown?
I am certain that this civilization is passing away. I am certain that the United States of America will collapse. I am certain that the human population will reach nine billion and then collapse in a horrendous fashion afterwards. I am certain that there are plenty of humans who are suffering, impoverished, deprived, exploited and suffering all sorts of injustice today.
I don't have any confidence in humankind at all. After five hundred years of intense, technological efforts the human animal has destroyed nearly the entire Earth and transformed a formerly living planet into Nature's biggest sewer. This is not the sort of success which I associate with survival.
Homo sapiens are headed to extinction. It is no tragedy, really, just Nature behaving naturally. Billions of species have already gone extinct. The loss of one primate species is really insignificant from the standpoint of Nature.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
What makes you think humanity is going to reach 9 billion in population?
Hello Capslock,
> What makes you think humanity is going to reach 9 billion in population?
I believe that momentum alone will take humankind to 9 billion between now and 2040. But there are plenty of scenarios in which this does not happen. Lots of bad things can happen between now and 2040.
Mexico looks like a really bad situation. The Persian Gulf is looking worse every day, too. I'd say that the apocalypse could occur at any time.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
Yo, chief,
Some of us out here in rural Amerika do not have access to the full fruits of the 21st century. So please don't go dissing us benighted modem folks.
You seem to be putting in lots of effort to alienate as many people as you can. I semi-agree with some of your sentiments, and I even sort of defended you yesterday, but your style truly is the sucks. Curmudgeonly is OK, gratuitous insults not so OK.
Or would you rather be "Right" than effective?
the following tips should help.
1. disable images in your web browser, this includes flash.
2. check if your isp has whats called in marketing jargon, a download accelerator. which is basically the isp compressing web pages before sending it to you over the phone line.
Edited your post to remove unnecessarily long quote. Please quote only an excerpt next time.
http://intelligencepress.com/
Bentek: 5% U.S. Production Decline Jan. 10-17
from NGI's Daily Gas Price Index January 29, 2007
While it's difficult to pinpoint the exact cause -- wellhead freeze-offs or insufficient data -- U.S. natural gas production has dropped dramatically, to post-Katrina levels, at a time when cold weather across the country has driven demand to a peak 40% above the average, Denver-based consulting firm Bentek Energy reported Friday. The company -- one of only a few firms that is collecting gas pipeline flow data nationwide -- said data show a 5.3% decline in domestic production occurred over a one-week period between Jan. 10 and Jan. 17.
I cannot believe someone actually tracks this stuff. Subscription required for full article. I recommend reading these snippets on this site. They have some of the best stories on NG.
Fireangel-
Wouldn't last year's oversupply problem and the drop in prices this summer be expected to lead to less drilling for natural gas? Also, the increased demand for rigs in other parts of the world?
Sure. I think the real slowdown occured in october though. What was surprising was the week on week change.
This is another article snippet from the same source.
The portion of the article that is visible talks about Canadian exports being down the year eneded Oct. 2005. That seems early for exports to be down. Wouldn't it be more likely that it was the year ended Oct. 31, 2006? Regardless, it makes 2007 Canadian imports look less certain.
Hello TODers,
Loved Leanan's toplink on the religious parent with 7 kids who is against informing his kids on PO + GW. Even a SUV is not big enough for this guy to shuttle his family--I bet he has something like those airport vans. I bet he is brainwashing his children to join the military so that the worst comes sooner.
"Hey kids, leave those lights burning in the empty rooms--it helps kill the infidels".
"I'm going to heat the pool this winter to help bring the Rapture".
"Let's make lots of waste and pollution--it is God's Will".
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Leanan,
I wonder if it is not time for the editors to think about limiting the number of posts allowed in the feature articles. Some that seem to have unlimited time to post, paid or otherwise, really don't seem to be excersizing self restraint and others have no respect for the mission of the site. As the community continues to grow and attract attention, the challenge is likely to grow. I only have so much time and I can't keep up here anymore.
Perhaps if folks understood they were limited to only 5 or 6 posts in a given thread they would be forced to prioritize thier comments and organize thier thoughts with more disapline. This might reduce flame wars by putting the focus on content instead of emotions. This could take some pressure off of the editors to have to moderate so many posts/posters that do not respect the blog's standards, or the nature of a peer review orientation. This would compliment an ignore feature nicely. Just a thought. I understand this issue is complicated and potentially resource intensive. Kudos to the team.
Hey, this is a really good idea. In conjunction with the ability to nominate a poster to receive more opportunities to post, I think that this would be very powerful.
I've just reworked my web site to focus on Peak Oil, specifically with reference to its place in the "Global Problematique". Critiques of format or content are solicited.
http://www.paulchefurka.com
Paul, great web site. I particularly liked the graph titled "Energy Use Tracks Population Growth." The track almost exactly.
And after peak oil when energy use turns down? Will population decline track energy decline? I am sure most will say no, because we will have solar power, wind power, corn power or whatever.
I guess that's the debate now isn't it. Us doomers against those who say "technology will save us."
But not to worry, there will be survivors. Call me a blind optimist but I am confident there will be survivors. Homo sapiens thrive and support themselves in virtually every area of the earth except Antarctica.
Hey, that would be an interesting poll for the Oil Drum. What, in your estimation, will be the population of the earth in 2100.
My guess between 500 million and 800 million.
Ron Patterson
Dueling doomers? OK, you're on - the losers buy the winner a bowl of gruel in 2100. My prediction for population decline is that we'll be down by 1 billion in 2050, down to 1 billion by 2080. I agree with your ultimate numbers.
Now we sit back wait for the usual suspects to come and bash us for damaging the site's credibility...
Food is the key, linked of course to the energy required to produce and distribute it.
It's just that when your starting point is the word "energy", people think primarily about the car they're driving, and they'll feel confident that if they just drive less, they're safe.
Tying energy decline directly to food production/distributiuon drives it home a lot stronger. This is partly because people have no idea how much energy goes into food, and partly because 50% less food is a lot more threatening than 50% less driving.
Dear He,
"This is partly because people have no idea how much energy goes into food..."
Do you mean the general populace? Or, do you mean there are no good academic studies?
What would be very helpful is a "next thread" button. Sometimes I would like to just skip right over the responses to a thread simply because the content isn't related to my interests.
Hello TODers,
Zimbabwe Update: http://www.swradioafrica.com/pages/Sokwanele270107.htm
---------------------------------------------------
The international press is currently swamped with reports of the arrests of over 25,000 gold panners in Zimbabwe.
This brutal operation is tantamount to genocide with constructive intent - the authors knew in advance that their actions would lead to death by starvation, depriving the poorest of the poor of their only - and last - means of feeding themselves and their families.
Not only have livelihoods been eliminated, but lives too. Since the beginning of January, the press - muzzled as it is - has still been able to report deaths as disused mines collapse on miners who are tear-gassed as they hide, seeking to evade arrest and others who have been shot by a police force bent on serving its despotic leader. By far the most appalling case is of three miners in Inyathi district who died from hunger and exhaustion after the police forced them to work for six days, filling up trenches left open by other gold panners, beating them and denying them food at the same time. They had been complaining of dizziness and hunger before they collapsed and died on December 24th.
--------------------------------
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Hello TODers,
What I find fascinating and yet so tragic about Zimbabwe is their precipitious decline in net energy, and the results we see in newsreports such as the one above. It has been a very short ride from the African breadbasket country to an African basketcase.
Yes, Pres. Mugabe has wildly mismanaged the country, but I fear that Pres. Bush and Congress, along with the other politicians at the state and local level, through their own actions and inactions, is heading us for much net energy decline too. I see very little evidence for Biosolar Powerup to counter Detritus Powerdown from the worsening ELM forces [but feel free to disagree].
I am most concerned of all over the North American food and water situation. Bottled water sales are booming, the trend should be the opposite. We should have moved away from further acquifer depletion by now, yet the extraction has only gotten more frenzied. Food examples abound too. Time will tell if we can reverse these forces by wise Biosolar policies.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Outside the Cantarell result, which is important, I see that many who post on the open threads have outdone themselves today.
I see TOD's credibility rising into the stratosphere ... with so many "intelligent & informed" comments I've seen on the Drumbeat today.
Thank you so very much for making my life and the lives of those on staff here at The Oil Drum, who post researched stories, so much easier — especially in terms of reaching a wider audience. Again, thanks so much. I know that I, for one, really appreciate your efforts.
-- Dave
PS: perhaps I have not reached a sufficient level of sarcasm — any help anyone could give me here would be appreciated. In the meantime —
Dave, with all due respect, what in the hell do you expect? I have been a contributor on this type of list since the year 2000. On every list you get the trolls, those who criticize everyone and everything. You get those who are serious and hope to have some information that can help to save the world. And you get those like me who believe there is not one thing one can do except try to save one’s own ass and help save the ones they love. And of course you do get some great information if you will only examine it closely.
Today has been a typical day on a typical peak oil list. It is no different from yesterday and will be no different from tomorrow.
I am truly sorry for your enormous disappointment with this list. But learn to live with it. It will be no different tomorrow.
Ron Patterson
I said
I will no longer put up with this mediocrity, stupidity and non-serious, emotional, affective nonsense in the face of issues that should get real attention.And, I never will. Why should I have to read CERA press releases, or XOM/Saudi Aramco media coverage -- and, at the same time, deal with fools like these? Never.
You know what the ironic thing is? It is this: I could read — as you said — the same shit tomorrow and write the same response — over and over and over and over and over and over and over again...
Being a senior contributor on this website who is published in energy journals, who thinks the world is facing an unprecedented liquid fuels crisis, do you, or anyone else, think that I would actually tolerate this crap?
Dave, there are undoubtly professional lists where the contriutors must have Ph.Ds, or at least professionals in the business that is the subject of the list. But this is an umnoderated open list where any riff-raff can join and say any damn thing they like. A lot of crap you must tolerate on such lists as this. True, you get mostly dung, but occasionally you get a diamond in the dungheap. That is, occasionally you get a bit of very valuable information but you must plow through a mile of crap to get it.
We are all grateful for your efforts to this list. But methinks you expect far too much in return. The crap you have been seeing on this list is typical of every unmoderated open list.
So the alternative is to close the list to all but the most qualified who reflect only the views and opinions you approve of. And as a result you will have the epitome of a mutual admiration society.
So for people like me who have no qualifications, other than forty years of thrashing this overpopulation and resource depletion straw, our only source of discussion is on open lists such as this. So we must take the good with the bad. And true, sometimes the bad is almost unbearable. But nevertheless we must grin and bear it in order to have a chance of occasionally picking that diamond from the dungheap. So I will continue to tolerate this crap. You however, must make up your own mind.
Ron Patterson
I forgot to add: I can truly sympathize with your position. I left the EnergyResources list because of the conspiracy theory nuts, holocaust deniers, American haters and other such nonsense. I left the RunningOnEmpty list because the moderator accused me or religious posturing. My religious posturing was my concern with overpopulation. He said believing the world was overpopulated was a religious position. Now I could have taken that from any of the ordinary posters, but not from the moderator who threatened to kick me off if I continued to discuss overpopulation. What I am saying is that things can become intolerable. But this list, so far in my opinion anyway, has not reached that point yet. So I remain, and I must say I am enjoying it.
Nuff said,
Ron Patterson
I appreciate your remarks, Ron. No problem.
But, I have bigger fish to fry, OK?
-- Dave
David,
You can lead them to the Truth.
But you can't "make" them think.
(Today's mantra: "Save the PeakLeader, Save the World.")
In that case you need to consider closing off public input. Any time you allow unmoderated public posting this is what you get.
As a matter of fact, speaking as a long-time denizen of usenet I have to say that the level of public input here is pretty darned high. Whether or not every contributor has research capability and despite the fact that some contributions are opinion-based, every single contributor I've seen here has a strong personal commitment to the topic. Even the ones who just come (came) on to stir up shit wound up here from a deep conviction that, as you say, "the world is facing an unprecedented liquid fuels crisis".
So you can accept the fact that the great unwashed are called that for a reason and will occasionally stink up the joint, but thank your lucky stars that such a high proportion of the debate here is thoughtful, rational and valuable. Or you can slam the window, post the researched articles, vet all the posters before you allow them to join and moderate all the posts. The rest of us will sit out here with our noses pressed against the glass, voiceless and grateful. It seems like those are the only realistic options.
Or you could just bitch about how unfair it all is.
GG...you are correct...it is the one thing we all share here...deep convictions about our future.
Speaking as a non-technical member of the public, who came here because of Kunstler, I value TOD even as I wince at some of the juvenile commentary that passes for informed, intelligent discussion. And these are comments posted by adults no less. Does not inspire a warm fuzzy feeling about our social cohesiveness in the future.
Having run my own MB and LJ (also open to the world), I have learned that the only way to keep the noise down is to set parameters and then enforce them. In the meantime I am getting better at scrolling past the flames and finding the stuff worth reading.
Because "this" is a microcosm of the "world".
The scientifically observable behaviors that you see here are a sampling of the responses you will see in the world as you try to bring "the message" (about the liquid fuels crisis) to the masses. They are skittish animals. You need to approach them carefully and send out just the right kinds of cooing signals at just the right time.
I'm not saying all is lost.
I'm just saying that the herd responds to warning signals in all sorts of unpredicatable manners.
Some seek religion.
Some seek a new savior technology.
Some cry.
Some laugh.
Some assume different names and come on here drunk as ever, and ranting away about the same stuff every day.
It may be unnerving. But this is a microcosm of who "we" (all us humans) are.
nice picture of our president
Thanks, I thought so, too.
Hello Dave Cohen & Super G,
TOD management suggestion:
How about no censorship and/or rating systems, but two tiered threads?
For example: your post your starting keypost, and the replies start coming in from the TODers. After a period of time that is convenient to you, you cut and paste the 'diamonds' to start immediately after your keypost. This way the less scientific, the least documented, the most repeated themes, the off-topic replies, and the ad hominem attack postings are not deleted, rated, or censored, but just moved down the queue.
IMO, those TODers that are time-constrained and/or unfortunately stuck with slow dialup should be greatly helped by this improvement. The keypost & diamonds would be the default refresh, if you wanted to read the 2nd tier-- you click a button, which always follows the last diamond, to enable a screen refresh of those postings. Anybody can respond to any posting in any tier, but the reply goes automatically to the second tier. The keyposter is always free, at their convenience, to move the postings of his choice from the 2nd tier into the diamond tier level. Only the keyposter can reply, or ask for more elaboration, and have his/her response or request directly under the original diamond in the diamond thread--the normal TOder reply auto-defaults to the 2nd tier.
If I read a diamond post [along with the keyposter's response], then I wish to read next the normal TODer responses: clicking a button in that diamond post will take me down to the 2nd tier where those replies exist.
I am not a programmer so I have no idea how difficult this would be to implement. Those posts chosen as diamonds will over time model for all TODers: the high quality, on-topic content, and style that the TopTODers seek to achieve. It creates an incentive for the TODer to raise his own standards so his posting achieves diamond status. It disincentizes the creation of emotional ad hominems by relegating them to the second tier where they are much more prone to not be read at all or just be quickly scrolled through.
Obviously, the keyposter needs to be as fair as possible in choosing a broad opinion of replies for diamond status, but if the normal TODer feels the discussion is too one-sided-->reading and/or posting in the second tier is an easy remedy. A well justified, documented, dissenting opinion can be commented by others asking for the keyposter to elevate this to diamond status, or to justify his reasoning for not elevating.
I hope this modest suggestion helps solve all the recent complaints I have read on TOD posting performance, and I hope that this would not be too overwhelming for Super G to install. Recall that the original creation of Leanan's Drumbeat was to reduce off-topic postings in the specific topic postings by the TopTODers.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Hello Dave Cohen,
How often do you make intelligent & informed comments, Dave? I have read your posts and am seldom impressed.
The Oil Drum would be a better place if you did a better job, Dave. All of the weaknesses & deficiencies come from the top down. Poor leadership generates a poor product. Garbage in, Garbage out.
What did you want to accomplish here, anyway? A blog is not necessarily a very effective technique of gaining the respect and adulation of the scholarly world. Nor are scholars well known for the accuracy and reliability of their consensus regarding the future of the world. You are left, then, with the somewhat-informed public thrashing about with ideas which are too great for the common mind. Lots of stress and anger, too, because such traits are human nature. Failed predictions, too, both optimistic and pessimistic. The future still remains ahead and no one really knows what is going to happen. Nor will anyone ever know, that is why we have no choice except to watch and wait.
Futile arguments, pointless conflicts, ignorance and irrationality: That's humankind for you, Dave. All you have discovered is that humans are pathetic, miserable animals whose minds are in a perpetual state of conflict between fear of the unknown and hope for a better future.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
In 2004, well respected TOD PROPHET Richard Heinberg came on Vancouver talk radio and in promoting his localization idiocy, he proclaimed that the city fathers should foster an immediate construction campaign. The reason: shortly China would not be able to afford to send cargo ships to us due to the shortage of oil and we would have no more footwear. If we wanted to replace our shoes when they wore out, we'd better start on building those shoe factories and lots more manufacturing plants.
He was laffed out of town.
It is being reported that yesterday in Cardiff Wales, he spoke to the Soil Assoc. Again he said: "Now the crisis is upon us." and we need more farmers and folks to teach farming.
He stated "Extrapolated to the UK, we're talking about something like a minimum of 10 million new farmers needed over the next 20 or 30 years." Yes. Heinberg has joined the lunatic fringe. The situation of acquiring imported food due to Peak Oil is so dire, that he is encouraging 333,333 workers to quit their jobs and move to rural UK to start farms. 333,000 new farmers next year and every year for 30 years.
Again, he will be laffed out of town.
David is justifiabley disheartened at the message being carried by TOD ambassadors. Robert is frustrated at the junk science being touted by TOD ambassadors. The staff is frustrated that first timers shake their heads and leave in disbelief of the statments made here presented as authoritive fact on economic collapse and dieoff and ...
yes, the inmates have taken over the asylum
TOD = Trolls Obfuscating Daily
I suppose your serious about the farming articles so let me lay on you what I see here in my region in the USA.
Most sons(and daughters as well) do not want to follow in there parents footsteps. They don't want the farm life. They leave as soon as they can.
They are dazzled by the lifestyles in the cities and burbs. They usually go to college and thats the end. If the son just goes to high school and no college the odds of them staying in farming are greater.
Even the kids I see raised on the farms are not that bright nor useful and find it hard dirty work and if they can get a job ..say truck driving they will take it.
So what you have then is the lone farmer whose sons usually are gone. He has to hire what labor he can to help him on a seasonal basis. Those he hires will never farm because there isn't a chance in hell they can get the land or the equipment to start.
I know in my neighborhood I know of only a few of the young men who have taken over or a big part of their fathers farming operation.
Usually the father has hundreds of thousands in assets yet the kids want the lifestyle they see on TV. Of course farm live doesn't get much play on the soaps or reality shows. Thats all make believe. Farming is real and hard work. Kids today are into neither.
What is being lost is going to be lost. Its a culture thing.
The information is not being passed on. Its only if you actually get down in the dirt or up on the combine and have to fork over the money do you start to get a glimmer. Fixing a combine broke down in the field? Hah...not something Lance or Kathi want to get their hands into. All that dust ,gumbo mud and grease?
Most farmers wifes after the honeymoon is over simply do something else and get out of the field fast as they can. They might do the books.
It may be different elsewhere.
There are 30 references to THE PROPHET Richard Heinberg at TOD, Dale. He expects 80 million americans to leave the burbs and go back to farming by 2037. Enjoy your new neighbours, eh.
As long as the Peak Oil movement is linked incestuously to these idiots, MSM/Govt's/stakeholders/decision-makers will dismiss y'all as part of the lunatic fringe...
Wake up.
Hello Freddy Hutter,
So my guess is that you would advise Bush & Cheney, and billionaire Richard Rainwater to sell their super-advanced Eco-Tech farms/ranchettes and invest instead in HUMMER dealerships?
It is only wise planning to discuss the possibility of most of North America labor-shifting back to relocalized permaculture at some future time.
When North American has vastly reduced flows of natgas, coal, and crude plus acquifers, fishing stocks, and other biota depleted--something has to give. My hope is that Biosolar Powerup can somehow offset these worsening trends.
Feel free to gives us your detailed proposals of how all of NA will function on less than 5 million barrels/day [if the Athabasca tarsands can even ramp to this level].
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Airdale-
I appreciate your farming posts. They are very believable - give insight into what is happening today.
I manage a large hog farm in rural Nebraska and see the same thing you do. The phenomenon of rural exodus is not new, but has recently accelerated. In Western Europe the percentage of the active population employed in agriculture fell from 75 percent before the industrial revolution (around the year 1750) to less than 10 percent today, in the U.S. this figure fell from 80 percent around the year 1800 to 2 percent today.
A good way to visualize the future is to imagine you are watching a movie of the last 100 years in reverse, at double speed.
I see no other way for a lower energy society to feed itself than to engage the idle masses in manual agricultural labor.
The late night party crowd is not going to like farm work.
As we would say in Spain: "Freddy, tienes un morro que te lo pisas" (don't worry, nothing offensive, this is like saying your mouth is so big you step over it every time).
You are complaining from a situation you are contributing with your name calling. Grow up, write like an adult person, show your data and forget pretending you're in high school.
Interesting discussion about peak oil
http://www.netcastdaily.com/broadcast/fsn2007-0127-3a.asx
or choose part 1 of third hour of this link for January 27
http://www.netcastdaily.com/fsnewshour.htm
The parent website is
http://www.financialsense.com/
Just in from the New York Times:
Saudi Officials Seek to Temper the Price of Oil
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/business/28oil.html?ex=157680000&en=da...
Hello TODers,
Recall my much earlier posts on Yucca Mountain never holding nuclear wastes:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2007/Jan-23-Tue-2007/news/1213371...
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Hello TODers,
I was greatly cheered by anti-war protests today. Hopefully this momentum can be steered by our Peakoil Outreach efforts towards Detritus Powerdown and Biosolar Powerup--In the long run: 150 million wheelbarrows working at home is more powerful than attempting to use 150 million rifles on foreign shores in the '3 Days of the Condor' scenario. Much healthier for our kids too. The future belongs to the young, always will.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Perhaps so, toto-n. But we have always found a few million rifles to be quicker. Besides, how many Americans know what a wheelbarrow IS?