Peak oil

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

Re: do you have a point worth making?

Postby Dreams End » Sun Mar 26, 2006 3:35 am

Newkid,<br><br>there are some REALLY long discussions on this in the archives under energy issues. Wintler's views, nor mine (opposing views) are not represented to deeply here, so cut him some slack. He doesn't only rely on Ruppert.<br><br>I do agree with your position, but that last paragraph doesn't do that position much justice. I'd read the threads first before ressurecting this particular debate. None of us like having to reargue long and complex points.<br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

more wasted words

Postby wintler » Sun Mar 26, 2006 3:46 am

Finally, something we can agree on, Newkid - Ruppert does seem to have a few roo's loose in the top paddock. However, I've never subscribed to FTW and haven't even visited the site in years. He too is a late-comer who has neither added nor detracted from the peak oil case.<br><br>Moving on from your slander, i notice you still provide zero substantiation of "At best, peak oil is wild speculation". No rebuttal of the work of Hubbert, Campbell, Leherrere, Bakhtiari, Duncan, Deffeyes, Magoon, Simmons, ODAC, ASPO, or the many others who have troubled to actually look at the problem, doing quantitative analyses of global oil discovery and production. <br><br>Forgive me, but your unsupported self assurance rates no further effort on my part, i'm more interested in the 167 public submissions to recent Aus. Senate enquiry on oil supply, <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/oil_supply/submissions/sublist.htm">www.aph.gov.au/senate/com...ublist.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br>nearly all of which treat the issue with the seriousness it deserves. <br><br>If you ever get around to actual thought or research (and i don't mean copy'n'pasting Dave Magowan, Ruppert, or 'peakoildebunked'), i'll happily haggle the whys and wherefor's. <br><br>But i've noticed that NONE of the peak oil sceptics on RI have ever bothered to make a case as to why oil production wont peak, they just allude to 'dark actors' and undescribed NWO plots. Shame really, it tarnishes the credibility of the real and important DID & deep politics work done here. <p></p><i></i>
wintler
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 5:28 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: do you have a point worth making?

Postby NewKid » Sun Mar 26, 2006 3:48 am

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr> do agree with your position, but that last paragraph doesn't do that position much justice. I'd read the threads first before ressurecting this particular debate. None of us like having to reargue long and complex points.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>That's great; I really don't give a shit. I'm not interested in debating Peak Oil at all and am certainly not going to waste any more time doing so with Wintler. There's plenty of that all over the internet. Like I said, my point here was much more about how you 'know' what you know instead of whether something's actually right or not. <p></p><i></i>
NewKid
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: do you have a point worth making?

Postby NewKid » Sun Mar 26, 2006 3:54 am

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>If you ever get around to actual thought or research (and i don't mean copy'n'pasting Dave Magowan, Ruppert, or 'peakoildebunked'), i'll happily haggle the whys and wherefor's. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><br>Dude, you sound pretty cultish about this stuff. I think it's time you put away all the charts and go take a vacation or something. Hell, maybe even go to California and debate Dave 'Magowan'. <p></p><i></i>
NewKid
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: do you have a point worth making?

Postby Dreams End » Sun Mar 26, 2006 4:06 am

Well, I'm certainly not going to reargue all this. So I guess this thread will drift off...but those interested should head to the energy issues archives. <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Re: Peak oil

Postby StarmanSkye » Sun Mar 26, 2006 7:42 pm

Newkid:<br>You say:<br>"While a lot of people talk about peak oil and all that, they all tend to jump to the conclusion that if oil production is slowly peaking, then the apocalypse will occur within a few nanoseconds afterwards."<br><br>WHAT???<br><br>All I can say is -- That's not an accurate take on what Peak Oil is about. I don't know anyone who's reasonably informed that makes the above conclusion.<br><br>Since you reference Heinberg, I'm even more stumped about what you're driving at -- especially when you say you aren't interested in debate on the merits of Peak Oil. His article 'George W. Bush and Peak Oil -- Beyond Incompetance' (<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.energybulletin.net/14102.html)was">www.energybulletin.net/14102.html)was</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> a fairly accurate, well-cited and balanced critique of the Nation's lack of an effective energy policy that competantly addresses let alone even acknowledges the implications of Peak Oil.<br><br>As per the point I *think* you wanted to make: Regardless of what Firedoglake or Rainwater think, their ideas or motivations have no bearing on the evidence that supports the theory of Peak Oil. <br><br>Heinberg's main points, which I essentially concur with, are:<br><br>* Peak Oil is foreseeable.<br>* The consequences are also foreseeable and are likely to be ruinous.<br>* The Bush administration has been repeatedly warned.<br>* Actions could be taken to reduce the impact, but the longer those actions are delayed, the worse the impact will be.<br>* The administration, rather than taking steps to mitigate these looming catastrophic impacts, has instead done things that can only worsen them. <br><br>Do you perchance disagree with any or all of these premises?<br><br>Do you take issue with the following quote, or with the Hirsch Report's thesis?<br><br>-- "Chris Skrebowski, editor of Petroleum Review and author of the study “Oil Field Megaprojects,” notes that “90% of known reserves are in production,” and that “as much as 70% of the world’s producing oil fields are now in decline” with decline rates averaging between four and six percent per year.4<br><br>*<br>--quote--<br>The first paragraph of the Hirsch Report’s Executive Summary states:<br><br>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.18 <br><br>As the Hirsch Report explains in detail, due to our systemic dependence on oil for transportation, agriculture, and the production of plastics and chemicals, every sector of society will be impacted.<br>--unquote--<br><br>I began educating myself on issues of development, wise-use, conservation, alternative energy/systems, sustainability and resource-depletion in the mid-80s; Nothing I've learned since has persuaded me that Peak Oil isn't a genuine --and very serious-- problem. <br><br>A central issue as I see it is the challenge of political will to organize and mount effective programs to minimize the effect of Peak Oil shortages given sufficient lead-time to plan accordingly -- it always being more efficient and cost-effective to prepare sooner rather than later.<br><br>The Hirsh Report (which Heinberg reports on) examined 3 different scenarios in this regard -- with conclusion I agree with.<br>--quote--<br>The Hirsch Report’s methodology involved the examination of three scenarios:<br><br>* Scenario I assumed that action is not initiated until peaking occurs.<br>* Scenario II assumed that action is initiated 10 years before peaking.<br>* Scenario III assumed action is initiated 20 years before peaking. <br><br>In all three scenarios, the Hirsch study assumed a “crash program” scale of effort (that is, all the resources of government and industry are marshalled to the tasks of creating supplies of alternative fuels and reducing demand through efficiency measures). The study found that, due to the time required to start efforts and the scale of mitigation required, Scenario I will result in at least 20 years of fuel shortfalls. With 10 years of preparation, a 10-year shortfall is likely. And with 20 years of advance mitigation effort, there is “the possibility” of averting fuel shortages altogether. The Report also concludes that “Early mitigation will almost certainly be less expensive than delayed mitigation.”20<br>--unquote--<br><br>It's curious and quite puzzling, but I've noted quite a few critics of Peak Oil often tend towards making the same kind of unwarranted claims, overblown exaggerations and hyperacute distortions that form the basis for their discreditation of Peak Oil -- ie., strawman arguments that don't accurately reflect the issues. In my experience, exaggeration often serves to disguise a value-judgement that confounds rigorous argument. For that sake, I'm aware of the need to examine my own arguments for hidden biases, to make sure they don't infect my reason with unacknowledged assumptions.<br><br>Since 911 and my expanded grasp of deep politics, I've become aware that the premise of Peak Oil underlies much of the US's past 30 years of its Imperialistic Foreign Policy -- now seen most clearly in the way that the US military and its energy policy have become interdependantly linked, in the US's covert petrodollar warfare doctrine (<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=KEE20060210&articleId=1936),">www.globalresearch.ca/ind...eId=1936),</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> and in the US's stake in preserving the dollars' position as the world's reserve currency -- which policy has cleverly managed to subsidize US imperial hegemony through forcing all net-oil consumers to accumulate dollars by which to buy oil --effectively exporting inflation and importing deflation.<br><br>It's hardly an accident that the US mainstream media almost totally censored all reports on the Iran Oil Bourse -- since the issues of Peak Oil, the US's unprecedented debt-liability, the budget-busting Military-defense Industry, the trumped-up War on Terror scam, and the US's Federal Reserve fiat-currency ponzi-scheme, are all so intricately interlinked.<br><br>Starman <p></p><i></i>
StarmanSkye
 
Posts: 2670
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:32 pm
Location: State of Jefferson
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Peak oil

Postby NewKid » Sun Mar 26, 2006 9:45 pm

Starman, I'm not interested in rehashing all this. There's plenty of anti-peakers on the internet if you want to hear about it. It's hotly debated. <br><br>You may think you know. But really, you don't. You may be right, but you really have no idea. You're just in no position to know something like this. I know you feel passionately about it and your pulse rises every time you see anti peak oil stuff, but on topics like this, keep an open mind and be very leery of people like Simmons, Rainwater and Heinberg. <p></p><i></i>
NewKid
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Peak oil

Postby NewKid » Sun Mar 26, 2006 9:48 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>"While a lot of people talk about peak oil and all that, they all tend to jump to the conclusion that if oil production is slowly peaking, then the apocalypse will occur within a few nanoseconds afterwards."<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><br><br>Dude, that's what's called humorous hyperbole. Did you really think I meant "nanosecond"? And do you seriously dispute people are talking about the apocolyptic events associated with Peak Oil? If you do, you haven't been paying much attention to what's out there. <p></p><i></i>
NewKid
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Peak oil

Postby NewKid » Sun Mar 26, 2006 9:57 pm

And by the way Starman, correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember you being someone who didn't think the correct solution to Fourth Base's Monty Hall game was as his professor and just about everyone else who's analyzed it thinks it is. So you'll forgive me if I don't take your arguments all that seriously on this stuff. <p></p><i></i>
NewKid
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Peak oil

Postby StarmanSkye » Sun Mar 26, 2006 10:14 pm

That's the part I didn't get -- You posted an article under the subject 'Peak Oil', and then get all pissy when I commented onnit, saying you don't want to talk about it.<br><br>I think I *know* there are internet discussions on Peak Oil -- but THIS is my favorite forum. I can't help think how incredibly bizarre it is for you to tell me to go somewhere else.<br><br>Note the subject topic?<br><br>Likewise, I absolutely KNOW you see dancing red spots and your bloodpressure rises alarmingly, you feel weak-headed and a rumbling roar fills your ears whenever someone suggests there are fairly reliable indicators that Peak Oil has a good measure of validity, and that discussion on strategies to offset consequences of serious supply shortfalls is NOT a total waste of time.<br><br>Of COURSE forums are places where people discuss what they think they know, I'm no different. Are you? I wouldn't bet everything I had or ever COULD have that the full impact of Peak Oil is certain to happen in 5, 10 or 20 years -- But the point is, there's absolutely no good reason to not make an effort to understand it and deal with it. So far, I am not convinced that the predictions of Peak Oil are invalid.<br><br>But whenever I see someone make some false or inaccurate claims about Peak Oil, or any other topic onna public forum, I reserve the right to say I agree or disagree, and why. I'm hardly NOT willing to listen, read and learn. As far as that goes -- I HAVE done my homework on the pros and cons of Abiotic oil and the problems involved in the world's trying to bridge a large supply-and-demand gap with other energy sources, and whether there's any basis to denials of Peak Oil.<br><br>Sorry to assume you had a point or something to add.<br><br>Starman <p></p><i></i>
StarmanSkye
 
Posts: 2670
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:32 pm
Location: State of Jefferson
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Peak oil

Postby NewKid » Sun Mar 26, 2006 10:16 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>But whenever I see someone make some false or inaccurate claims about Peak Oil,<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><br>But what I said isn't false at all. Once again, do you deny that people are making apocolyptic predictions? <p></p><i></i>
NewKid
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Peak oil

Postby NewKid » Sun Mar 26, 2006 10:19 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>then get all pissy when I commented onnit, saying you don't want to talk about it.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>because your objection is quite bizarre. It's one thing to argue Peak Oil's case, but to argue that people aren't making dire predictions? You know better than that. <p></p><i></i>
NewKid
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

evidence

Postby smithtalk » Sun Mar 26, 2006 10:39 pm

could someone point me to some good evidence that simmons is a charlatan, would be much appreciative <p></p><i></i>
smithtalk
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 10:53 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: evidence

Postby NewKid » Sun Mar 26, 2006 11:06 pm

Smithtalk please. Do you really want to start putting your trust in folks like Simmons? <br><br>I'm not going to spend my evening digging up all the dirt on Simmons; I'm sure you can find it. In about 20 seconds, here's what I come with and I think it's probably pretty accurate:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Matt's really pulling out the stops on this current fear-mongering tour. Check this out: <br><br>But by 2030 we could easily have a world that can only produce 10 or 15 or 20 million barrels per day, and the shortfall from what we thought we were going to produce is only a modest 100 million barrels per day. So this is really a major, major, major global issue(Source: Petroleum News article cited above. Also see Note* at the bottom).<br><br><br>This is nothing but pure lobbyist FUD, a load of major, major, major bullshit that nobody agrees with. Nobody believes world oil production will be 10-20mbd in 2030 -- not Exxon/Mobil, not Shell, not the USGS, not the DOE, not Sadad Al Husseini (see #89), not Colin Campbell, not ASPO, not Jean Laherrere... Nobody. <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Simmons is talking out his ass</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->. He is not a petroleum engineer, or a geologist, and he has a sum total of zero first hand knowledge of reservoir engineering, and zero first hand knowledge of the Saudi oil fields -- the two subjects on which he is now respectfully regarded as the world's foremost expert. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2005/09/97-matt-simmons-and-anwr.html" target="top">peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2005/09/97-matt-simmons-and-anwr.html</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br><br>BTW, I personally know former employees of his who all say he's full of shit as a person. <br><br>Enough with the peak oil cultists. You guys are worse than the CD crowd. <p></p><i></i>
NewKid
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

without wishing to sound too sacrcastic

Postby smithtalk » Sun Mar 26, 2006 11:25 pm

maybe you should look up the word evidence in your dictionary,<br><br>you made the call, you call him a charlatan<br><br>i am interested in evidence,<br>i could create a blogspot in the next 3 minutes called peak oil is bullshit, write a post slamming aforementioned dudes, and it would be worth fuck all to anyone,<br><br>now i am prepared to believe that his company website might exaggerate their own credentials cos that is the norm,<br>but they opened in 1974 immediately focussing on the oil service industry, in 1989/90 they were veryt interested in oil supply and demand factors, their research looks at upstream oil services, midstream and downstream, exploration,production, alternative energy, coal, and the tanker industry.<br>the company has '91 professionals and a total of 141 employees—by far the largest investment banking practice serving the energy industry'<br><br>charlatan? maybe i need to check my own dictionary,<br>or maybe matthew simmons know a bit more about oil than a peakoildebunked, personally i am not sure,<br><br>anyone that takes a hard position on this issue is an idiot, beacause the one thing that is needed to make an assesment is not freely available, evidence <p></p><i></i>
smithtalk
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 10:53 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest