Well, the cry wolf syndrome is a problem for more than just PO -- this is also true for the whole environmental movement. A lot of the stuff predicted back in the 70s was premature (but not otherwise wrong).

This is mostly true except for the part that it was "premature", especially with respect to climate change.

The underlying cause for concern always was and still is that of run-away Climate Change. GW concerns really started in the 1980's. Twenty years later we are undergoing an anthropogenically enhanced abrupt and non-linear (unpredictable) climate change -- one that for all practical intents and purposes will likely be very soon humanly irreversible.

Was it really "premature" to warn of this then?

According to James Hanson, from an adaptation of a talk delivered in February, and printed in The Nation (May 7.2007 issue):

"There's a huge gap between what is understood about global warming by the relevant scientific community and what is known about global warming by those who need to know: the public and policy-makers. We've had, in the past thirty years, one degree Fahrenheit of global warming. But there's another one degree Fahrenheit in the pipeline due to gases that are already in the atmosphere. And there's another one degree Fahrenheit in the pipeline because of the energy infrastructure now in place--for example, power plants and vehicles that we're not going to take off the road even if we decide that we're going to address this problem.
"The Energy Department says that we're going to continue to put more and more CO2 in the atmosphere each year -- not just additional CO2 but more than we put in the year before. If we do follow that path, even for another ten years, it guarantees that we will have dramatic climate changes that produce what I would call a different planet -- one without sea ice in the Arctic; with worldwide, repeated coastal tragedies associated with storms and a continuously rising sea level; and with regional disruptions due to freshwater shortages and shifting climatic zones."

Had we thought to address this as a serious concern, worthy of the precautionary principle, even 15 years ago we wouldn't be faced with the dire problem we are today as Hanson (among many, many other scientists) now sees coming no matter what we do. For civilization as we know it it will likely prove to be an unstoppable disaster.

Once set in motion climate change is a beast and will not readily relent to our late and still haphazard efforts to mitigate it. The lesson is a tragic one, in that those who were accused of "crying wolf" back were not at all premature with such an intractable threat.

Instead of learning our lesson, today's PO promoters are in the same boat that CC theorists were in 20 years ago. There is another "freight train coming down the tracks", which according to the Hirsch Report (along with many, many other thinking people, like ourselves):

"The peaking of world oil production presents the U.S. and the world with an unprecedented risk management problem. As peaking is approached, liquid fuel prices and price volatility will increase dramatically, and, without timely mitigation, the economic, social, and political costs will be unprecedented. Viable mitigation options exist on both the supply and demand sides, but to have substantial impact, they must be initiated more than a decade in advance of peaking." {my emphases}

Among their quoted conclusions:

• World oil peaking is going to happen, and will likely be abrupt.
• Oil peaking will adversely affect global economies, particularly those most dependent on oil.
• Oil peaking presents a unique challenge (“it will be abrupt and revolutionary”).
• The problem is liquid fuels (growth in demand mainly from transportation sector).
• Mitigation efforts will require substantial time.
• 20 years is required to transition without substantial impacts
• A 10 year rush transition with moderate impacts is possible with extraordinary efforts from governments, industry, and consumers
• Late initiation of mitigation may result in severe consequences.

Gee, this all sounds awfully familiar.

By the time we do wake up to recognizing PO for what it is, like CC, it will be too late to do much to mitigate the worst of its effects upon civilization as we know it.

By my way of reckoning, this new crying wolf "research project" is only interesting in the same way that any of us cares to give studied witness to the progression of our ultimate demise. For myself and civilization as I know it, I've grown weary of this new yet same old drama.

Of course it ain't over til its over, but the plot is essentially the same and I see no reason to believe the outcome won't be any different than the CC one already set in motion.

It really is a once in a long historical lifetime we are stuck in, and all I can do is sit back comfortably while preparing as best I can to enjoy the show while it lasts. Tragically, so it goes...

I've also noticed the stark absurdity of the 9/11 "truth" demographic when it comes to acknowledging elementary geology. Obviously an interesting psychological phenomenon--or, more realistically, *problem*. I don't know if this is the appropriate place to ask, but when you say tin-foil-hat-wearing do you mean the the government had prior knowledge of 9/11? I always tended to think that our government is way to inept to organize such a murderous conundrum, but I know history has a lot to say in opposition.

Regarding the cry wolf syndrome being indicative of the problems of environmentalism, you are certainly right that the massively incorrect predictions emanating from the late '60s and early '70s gave ample firepower to propagandists in the opposing camps (Hoover, Heritage, Hudson et al). But in reality, there is no big conspiracy. Just a government that Madison set up to keep the wealthy business classes--now morphed into corporate descendants--in power over the economy. In the early 20th century this just became an industrialized version of Madison's experiment, and along with industrialism came an explosion of media, almost entirely corporate owned. So, to sum up, our society's psychological fabric consists of private interests and propaganda--the two pillars standing in the way of, for lack of a better term, the "awareness train". Entertainment is the best propaganda you can buy. These pillars have been in place since slavery, and they still impede consciousness raising to this very day... However, in addition to private interests and propaganda, we can also throw in the sheer imaginative ability of the Homo Sapien. We may be sick little monkeys but we're also quite stunning in our abilities of invention (think religion, for a good sprawling anthropological example) and intelligence (think math, science).

Point is...

I'm sure that even if the horrendous predictions made by prominent academics in the 70s were never made--that "environmentalism" still would be probably right where it is today... Which is to say, nowhere.

davebygolly, you succinctly wrote:

"The only thing PO does right now is say: do you see the freight train coming down the tracks?"

And the amazing thing is that many people do not--or they claim it's moving at .001mph and won't hit us for at least 30 years, and by then we won't even be standing on the tracks anymore... (We'll be living in our "sustainable" [subsidized] corn stalk homes!)

davebygolly wrote,

"One side note. I'm also one of those tinfoil hat guys on 9-11 (as is Colin Campbell along with some other PO people). The interesting part is that a lot of 9-11 people don't buy PO at all -- it's just a conspiracy by the oil companies to jack up prices. So while these people are able to adjust to the horrible implications of the 9-11 story, the idea that our whole way of life is not sustainable is somehow just too much to bear."

Well, in this particular case (again, it changes form if you shift to another part of the political spectrum) it is an ability to over fantasize. There is no direct link, to the extent that PO is related to 9/11... In my view the status quo explanation is correct. Government incompetency coupled with the blow back of a determined fundamentalist suicidal death cult. National security, to the extent that it works, is *supposed* to protect us. The 9/11 truth people seem to go the hot air route of BenjaminCole (just to continue upon my assault on him throughout this thread!) They say something is true--but do so without the backup of sensible argument coupled with hard evidence. They hem and haw for their "beliefs" in the the presence of devastating arguments against holding them (much like heavily religious, personal-god type people).

To the extent that there are questions about collapse, I don't believe they hold up. When the buildings began construction in the mid-60s they were a totally original design, no building of that stature had ever been constructed where essentially the exterior of the building would be holding together the structure. They used an entirely new system of building a skyscraper to... By the time they were finished, in the 70s the buildings were relics of an bygone era of building--but they obviously stood intact perfectly fine (that is until jetliners were flown into them at high speeds). That they collapsed, to me, is unsurprising and I don't believe one needs to imagine thermite in the staircases, etc etc, to conclude that they collapsed as a result the complicated physics of massive jet-liners slamming into very experimentally gargantuan buildings. Given how, and when the they were built, in addition to recognizing the immensity of them, it doesn't surprise me.

It is just inconceivable that my own government would "plan" the attacks--and that type of thinking gives the far left (of which I would count myself) a very bad name and makes me ashamed to be a liberal (as do very many other things purported "liberals" say and do.) I might also note here that there is probably some cognitive dissonance amongst those that can't believe that they came down as a consequence of the physics resulting purely from the impacts. I remember on that day, during the "event", while the two towers were will still standing--I don't think anyone imagined (or wanted to) that they would fall... Maybe this is part of it? I'm unsure, but I think there is some type of relation between the "truthers" and an inability to grasp, perhaps, American descent, failure, collapse (ironically enough), etc--ie, "it is all just the big corporations controlling us! But, everything will keep on going fine, we just hate them controlling us!" Of course strikingly, there are people on the otherside, who are evangelical about corporate benevolence and sacredness... Two sides of the same hysterical coin?

However, given all this (you started it, tin-foil-wearer! :-] ) I still wholeheartedly agree that our government did and has exploited 9/11 to the fullest extent allowable by human consciousness and has inexcusably whitewashed it--but that is just realpolitik. Iraq is clearly the manifestation of Hawkish tendencies in AEI and it's swarm of bees. And yes, that hive is essentially a strategic planning unit for US Imperialism and control of the world's economy, and energy reserves (not surprisingly--we've gotta use our half a trillion dollar military budget doing something!)

And when do we start to lose our grasp? Iraq is a harbinger of our inability to control a world that we have become dependent on.

I think your slightly optimistic if you factor in EROI issues especially with ethanol and also the age factor ( 20 years no investment) in the oil industry. If you add in these two factor you get the beginning of real peak effects in 2008 for sure i.e you should be post peak enough to have real pricing pressure. This means I think we get the first peak oil price shock Sep 08 not in 09 like you have it. A saving factor may be a slowing economy which will reduce demand. But I'd say from basically summer of next year on we could easily see a bidding war start between the wealthier countries and this is the major short term problem. A few externals such as hurricanes ME conflict which cannot be predicted but can be assumed to be 100% probable over a three year period will ensure that we will probably enter into post peak conditions sooner than a bottom up analysis would indicate. Finally a lot of our recent production is from fairly small offshore projects these have very steep decline rates in general and "swarms" of offshore production should deplete rapidly of the next few years. This additional effect that I don't think anyone has really modeled should also be considered.

Overall since most of the factors your not considering are negative we should expect your forecast or more correctly the monetary effects we expect once we get the demand/peak oil wedge to happen sooner than later. The only positive is a slowing economy.

Greyzone: Right now, I can see why both sides think they are right. We had a rapid run-up in oil prices, followed by shrinking increases in demand.

Obviously, to really know who is "right' we may have to wait a few years. I suspect a glut will come, unless OPEC cuts and cuts and cuts. So the argument may, in fact, continue for years.

I don't think there is a practical "geological" peak in fossil crude supply. At what price? What about tar sands? Venezuela heavy oil? Huge supplies in kook-nations, such as Iraq, Iran, Libya, Nigeria, not being exploited now? Mexico's chronic buffoonery? At $60 a barrel incentives are pretty good to go after the oil (I understand certain light oil deposits crater, no matter what).

My point is that there may be a Peak Demand, and, even more importantly, there may be serious bottlenecks amplified by the fact that unstable, hostile nations control so much of the oil.

We are wise to quickly ramp-up alternative liquid fuels, PHEVs, and conservation measures of every stripe. Solar, wind, everything.

The good news is that we know what price will cut off the growing demand for fossil crude – it appears to be more than $60 a barrel – and that said price need not necessarily lead to global recession.

I still say the future is better than it has been in a long time. The new technologies and alternative fuels coming online are wonderful. Solar power making progress. Rapier now says he is workng on terrific ethanol process. Big wind farms going up. Huge jatropha plantations in Indonesia. The progress being made is just starting.

Most of my assertions rest on data from EIA, BP, EIA. They are generally accepted figures pertaining to consumption. I think I am fairly factual, when not extolling the merits of pig oil.

I hope differences of opinion are welcomed, not resented. Every forum is richer for openess, not censorship.

Please explain how you can tell a peak in demand from a geologic peak in supply

If there is less of the stuff even though the demand is still rising, then prices will rise.

If there is less demand for the stuff even it is there to be had, then prices will fall.

Actual demand will always be the same as actual production (with the reserves as a buffer). Price is the variable to look for.

Guess what has been happening in these last 5 years.

please explain how you can tell a peak in demand from a geologic peak in supply.

It may surprise you to learn that the terms "supply" and "demand" have been used by these folks called "economists" for a while now.

According to these "economist" guys, a situation with too little demand should involve low prices, and a situation with too little supply should involve high prices.

So telling the difference between peak demand and peak supply should be pretty easy. I have no idea why you keep insisting it'll be hard. Perhaps you could, y'know, offer us a little evidence to back up your claim?

We all await some useful discussion on this instead of your endless assertions without basis.

A matter on which you are a known expert.

Khebab-
Judging from an above post, evidently there was someone named Freddy Hutter, who had his posts banned. I know one of my posts was deleted, and, on another occasion, I was asked to reconsider posting until I read the archives. I have never posted anything obscene or offensive, or even insulting.

Just my usual commentary that I think things are somewhat better than most TOD'ers, somewhat less happy than CERA.

But then, we do not have transparency on how TOD is funded, or what its agenda is. There is no disclosure about financial resources, or possible conflicts of interest editors may have. I am deeply skeptical about the motives and agenda of TOD, but find it a good source of information. I think the CFTC should take a long hard look at PO websites, to see if any may have ties to hedge funds which have gone long on oil. There is $15-20 of fear in every barrel of oil, and billions riding on keeping that fear intact. I am making no accusations, but the plain facts are that there is no transparency.

Those are fascinating figures you provide on crude oil and condensate. If the figures are cirrect, we are already seeing declining consumption of crude oil and condensate, in this price regime.

Are we seeing Peak Demand? I think so. That is the big story: We have Peak Demand at more than $60 a barrel, and the trend is our friend. It is only going down from here.

Thank you for not insulting me.

Many are predicting an oil glut in the near future (even the ASPO).

Well, that would explain a lot. Or, perhaps the Export Land Model is too scary for even some of the Peak Oil crowd.

We have apparently been disinvited to present a paper on Oil Exports for the ASPO-USA conference in Houston this fall, if I insist on using the HL method. Perhaps I am missing something, but if one uses a technique that accurately predicted the decline in net exports in 2006, why wouldn't one use it to predict future production and exports? I told them I wouldn't be doing a paper without using the HL method to predict future production. You might talk to Rembrandt about a joint paper if you are interested.

In any case, I would like to proceed with a HL based paper (for Graphoilogy/TOD/EB), focused at least the top five. Can you get historical Total Liquids production for the top five exporters? I'll delve into the EIA data set to get recent consumption numbers for the top five.

Export Land in action: Some recent monthly crude oil data, from Pemex, for the period from 1/06 to 4/07:

Annual decline rate in production: 4.6%

Annual rate of increase in consumption: 10%

Annual decline rate in exports: 16%

Nothing to worry about here, just one of the top 10 net oil exporters in the world, and the #2 source of imported crude oil for the US.

FYI--using the HL method, Khebab predicted the decline in Mexican production (and warned about falling exports).

A quick look at the top five net exporters (accounting for half of net exports in 2006, annual average numbers, Total Liquids, EIA), from 2005 to 2006:

Production: -1.3%

Consumption: +5.5%

Net Exports: -3.3%

For all your talk about "No one knows when" the excellent summary indicates the 95% confidence limits. Perhaps if you ask nicely you can get some 99% confidence limits, will this satisfy you?

Remember that these results are a composition of analyses of people in the heart of the oil industry. If they are wrong and unknowning, who is capable of being trusted?

Go to BP's website. Statistical Review. In economist parlance, consumption equals demand. I know that rings false in current context. I surely sympathize with people who cannot afford oil. Like the Republicans, I am a huge proponent of income redistribution, I just think it should be spread down, not up.

But, to give BP its due, they compute how much demand there is, as there usually is a little extra capacity on the market. The demand does not sop up all the supply.

Really, though. Would you say oil should be free, so everybody's demand could be accommodated? Or even more expensive, for various worthy reasons?

I sense demand is down in the face of higher prices, while supply is getting ready to surge. Actually, that makes sense, when you triple prices in a few years.

Maybe we have hit Peak Oil already. I doubt it. Even some dedicated Peak Oilers says in 2011 or later. I am pretty certain we have hit Peak Demand. The numbers posted above on oil and condensate use are fascinating. Two years back-to-back of dropping consumption.

At this price, demand will never go back up. The Big Story: Peak Demand. You read it on TOD first. Lucky you.

You are not going to like Khebab's answer...

;)

Ghawar Is Dying
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Dr. Albert Bartlett

No, it's not a simplification. The IEA always give straight line (or exponential like) projections. But to be fair, their 2004 forecast for 2007 (85.41 mbpd, all liquids) is not too much off of actual levels (84.26 mbpd). So I believe it's too early to tell them to throw away their rulers.