by 5E6A » Fri Sep 08, 2006 2:08 pm
<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Also, your retort on "culminate" was embarrassing. Made me look stupid. Don't make me look stupid. You wouldn't like me when I'm stupid. In my defense, the first response on dictionary.com gives both of our meanings. Figures:<br><br> Quote:1. to reach the highest point, summit, or highest development (usually fol. by in).</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br> <br>I do not see how high point, summit, or highest development can remotely be construed as a finality. It in every way only denotes an crest at which a decline is to follow. If decline is to follow, there is more, albeit at a declining rate, to be had. Therefore, your need for, and instance of, finality is neither met nor defensible.<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Did Hubbert base that peak graph thingy on an estimate of total recoverable reserves of 1.25 gigabarrels?<br><br>If so, then, just speaking of Hubbert now...and his wrongness, not later applications of the theory, how does even Colin "we don't condone genocide, we just publish articles advocating it in our newsletter" Campbell's low estimate of 2 gb affect that particular graph? To me, it looks like you'd have to add more than two and a half more of those square thingies and they won't fit.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>Depletion is a <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2005/9/13/162534/953">function of production and URR.</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> Had we not consumed at an exponential rate of growth with respect to the two divergent estimates, you would be correct in assuming that the larger reserve would not fit under the curve. Had we not consumed at an exponential rate the curve would have looked different in it would have shown a peak much later in date and the up curve and decline would have been much flatter in rate. However, we did. In the next decade we will, if able, consume as much oil in those ten years then was produced in all the previous years to date. This is exponential. This is why his curve analysis still works. Had we not been unremitting pigs, oil would not be in jeopardy of declining. But we have been, so we must bear the responsibility of our actions.<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>To me, albeit no expert in geology as you guys are, it sounds to me like "estimates of recoverable reserves" are not handed down on stone tablets but might be prone to large amounts of error.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>I believe I already said as much previously. So much for retention. Here it is again, <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9009529&contentId=7017933">"URR (Ultimately recoverable resource), ...is "an estimate of the total amount of oil that will ever be recovered and produced. It is a subjective estimate in the face of only partial information."</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--></em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> <br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Now, where was I...oh yeah. Well, okay, here's something else I have trouble with. I'm trying to get some basic info. I think it would be handy, for example, to get an estimate of CURRENT recoverable reserves. Here's where it gets tricky. The oil companies/DOE have one version, and the US geological survey has another. Hmm...this is science after all...can't be THAT big a difference.<br><br>Let's see, Oil Industry estimates show current proven reserves at around 1 trillion barrels of "proven reserves". USGS gives us the figures of 1.1 trillion for "identified"..not a huge difference but then 2.275 trillion as "recoverable reserves".</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>When any entity estimates, they use statistical analysis. If you are so inclined, you can usually find, although it may take going to a rather large library and delving into non-internet available publications and media, the methodology and data behind the estimates. I have done this with the DOE, which get their figure from the USGS. I would advise anyone to be very careful of using DOE predictions. Here is why. In statistics there are measures of confidence. Roughly translated it is a probability one can assign that the outcomes your research findings to can be expected to reflect real world occurrences. Peer reviewed literature generally holds research to a 95% confidence measure. Meaning if you cannot prove through statistics that your findings have a 95% chance of being reflected in the real world, they don't even consider your paper for review to make sure you did not fudge data or the analysis. Other levels are calculated. The DOE does a 50% and 5%. Here is where the caution comes in. <br><br>Almost without exception, the DOE, with respect to publishing estimates on the date of Peak Oil, which they have addressed in the past four years, and URR uses not the 95% number, but the 50% and 5% number. The 2 trillion estimate caries a measure of confidence of 50%. When the DOE estimates PO as occurring in the late 2030's, they are using the 5% finding for URR. This is not acceptable to the research process as I understand it. Those findings do not have the statistical probability to be rigorous in the realm of scientific research. But they make good copy. And where the agendists are concerned, copy is everything.<br><br>A final note. After I ascertained that the DOE was bandying about lesser confidence measures I did an additional data check. I found the original data tables for the 95% number and did my own arithmetic with respect to URR. My addition of the original data set, triple checked, was a full 300 billion barrels short of their total, that's ten years of global consumption at present rates. This would result in disqualification for publication in any peer reviewed situation. Making mistakes in adding up data for totals is not allowed. It throws not only your conclusions into doubt, but your methodologies and analysis as well. These factors all add up to a giant red flag with respect to how reliable any estimate is coming from the USGS/DOE.<br><br>And now for something completely different. (with all this having to rehash what was abundantly clear to begin with, is it any wonder I feel like I am in the argument sketch from MPFC?)<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>The fact that you include other sorts of peaks..water, etc, and the need for deconsumption suggests to me that you are buying into an idea with a pretty checkered past. It doesn't ultimately matter what resource runs out...it's the idea that the only way out is deindustrialization and (not your words but very prevalent) depopulation. This is the subtext that I oppose so adamently. I'm really not a big fan of oil. And I'm certainly not a fan of oil companies.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>I have a feeling that previous encounters with presentations of PO have left you with more than just an abiding bias. My research to date has not just been limited to the nature and veracity of finite oil and how long it will last. It has delved into the pervasive nature in which oil has been applied to create the industrial lifestyle we presently revel in. It has also sussed out the potential for alternative forms to shore up the gap. The potential is not present. The feed-stock nature of oil is not provided for through the application of nuclear, solar, wind, water or bio sources of energy. This means that the building blocks of our society, plastic, rubber etc. are of dubious longevity in the post peak arena. Further, the potential for application of all to cover just the burning of petroleum products is also at a deficit. Once you are left with a potential deficit even in the face of radical exploitation of the alternatives only one thing remains, a re-assement of how much we each can consume. Finally, there is a great cause for concern in that the alternatives themselves are reliant upon petroleum inputs to implement. How do you make an alternative reliant upon petroleum when that item is scarce? This is why I say that ultimately, beyond our lifetimes, sustainable society may look much more like pre than post industrial. The way in which oil shaped the industrial revolution to post is enormous. Absent that input, things are apt to look much different.<br><br>Consumption is a measure of many things. It ranges from widgets to food, transportation to climate control, size of dwelling to makeup of the actual structure. There is every reason to believe that non-petroleum input agriculture can produce as much food as the form of petroleum reliant agribusiness that feeds the world currently does. It will require, however that people adjust the manner in which they get their food. Predominately, it will require many more farmers. It will also require that people be satisfied with the range of foodstuffs that can be grown and stored locallly. For a good insight as to how locally produced agriculture is the way through our current conundrum, get a copy of The Omnivores Dilemma by Michael Pollan from your local library. The section on polyface farm / grass farming is particularly enlightening and uplifting. The proprietor of polyface farm cultivates a hundred or so acres with a dozen employees, raises a range of organic meats from beef to foul and rabbit. He also gets more product out of his farm then conventional methods.<br><br>To put words in my mouth is reprehensible. Neither my overt text nor the subtext ever approached even contemplating a reduction in population. I will admit to having my doubts that we can continue to freely increase our population without complications. However, I have not undertaken anywhere near a comprehensive inquiry to the extent to which our host is able to support a number of humans upon its face. That is why I would never even contemplate a reduction in population. That you would go to the length it took to put those words in my mouth also calls into question how willing you are to discuss the realities that face us. It seems that for every refutation I present, you find another way to restate the fallacy, and now are looking for even more fallacious reasons to doubt the finiteness of resources. This is not in the spirit of debate. Remain on track, and find relevant aspects to discuss, distraction and obfuscation are neither honorable nor rigorous. <p></p><i></i>