Apocalypse Soon?

No, I said we have the reserves to do it. We don't have the production capacity because we don't need it. If we had to, we could ramp up even faster than we are now. Fortunately we don't need to.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Largest increase ever is not hyperbole, it is a statement of fact. But it really doesn't matter how you describe it -- is this just your way of avoiding dealing with the fact? The statistic. You say you want a rational discussion, yet you are refusing to deal with the statistics and instead quibble over the wording of the description. Not to mention the irony of someone who is predicting a collapse of civilization calling anyone hyperbolic.

You seem to believe that decreasing energy use must cause a decrease in standard of living.

No, I didn't say that.

Like I said, I'm surprised you aren't keeping up to date: That graph is two years out of date. Production for 2012 was roughly 6.4 MBPD. Does that still fit a bell curve? What if it goes up to 7 MBPD in 2013 as predicted? Does that still fit a bell curve? If it keeps rising for another decade, as predicted, will that still fit a bell curve?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Now I can't seem to edit, so I'll quote and add:

You tell me: How high does US oil production have to go before you decide that it no longer fits the bell curve? Provide a number please.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And expansion on another one:

Not to get into a hyperbole identification war, but I would consider an inference that our energy use will drop to zero hyperbolic and ridiculous.

In any case, your OP links and quotes "Olduvai theory", which holds that the US standard of living peaked in 1973 and has been decreasing ever since due to the decrease in energy intensity. So I assumed you agreed that energy intensity was a direct measure of standard of living. My point is that it isn't. More to the point, the US standard of living has not been decreasing since 1973, it has been increasing for most of that time by most direct measures (economic cycles notwithstanding).

 

Not on my bill! In fact, it's increased a bit over last year. Like i said, if production price declines, the supplier simply picks up the difference in extra profit. The consumer gets a share of the savings on some manufactured goods (though that price decrease does not equal his cut in salary and the incidental costs downloaded by industry onto the public sector), but never on food, energy or shelter.

Again, not reflected on my monthly hydro bill.
PS please don't use the word "explosion" in a sentence about gas. We've already had one big fire in Toronto... the cost of which has been duly passed on to the consumer and taxpayer (me) along with damage to the community and serious misgivings - political ones, even to the extent of halting power plant construction.

 

Do you have any bills from 2008 handy?

That's not how it works. With commodities, the profit is typically a fixed fraction. I'm sorry don't remember prices older than a year ago, but the drop was real.

 

I am not refusing to deal with your so called "statistics". I just think they are very misleading. But since you seem to want to make such a point about it, let's deal with your "statistics" in more detail, shall we?

The CNN article you referenced is just hype. It is based on the IEA's WEO 2012. Here is a much better article:

http://crudeoilpeak.info/us-shale-oil-hype

Here is the IEA graph. Very impressive:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Why are NGL's sandwiched in between oil production? NGL's are not oil. Very weird graph.

Here is a graph of actual production:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Here is the very different EIA estimate:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Here is the IEA graph with the data restacked to show oil separate from NGL's:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Here is the properly stacked graph seen from a longer view:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please read through the whole article I linked. It is obvious that the IEA forecast is not reliable. It is basically a bunch of hype.

So the very act of predicting a social collapse is hyperbolic? That is ironic. It is also begging the question.

In the aggregate, I am certain that I am correct. This would be because of the basic laws of physics, especially thermodynamics.

Please stop accusing me of not being up to date. I don't personally create all of the charts and graphs that I post, do you? That was the best, most up to date graph I could find that illustrated my point. Besides, contrary to what you say, there have not been any earth shaking developments in the last couple of years that render peak oil theory obsolete.

Will US production ever exceed the 1970 peak? As you can see from the last graph in this post, it is not predicted to, even by the most ridiculously optimistic projections. So the answer is yes, oil production will still basically fit a bell shaped curve, though it may not be exactly smooth and symmetrical.

It would have to exceed the 1970 peak of 9.6 million barrels a day in order to invalidate current peak oil theory. The bell shaped curve is theoretical production of any non renewable resource under ideal, unconstrained conditions. Actual production doesn't have to fit an exact, smooth bell curve to be consistent with peak oil theory. Saying it does is a straw man argument.

My statement was not hyperbole, it was a reductio ad absurdum, based on your inference that standard of living is somehow not dependent on energy use. I was highlighting how hyperbolic and ridiculous your inference was. By the way, as a separate point, it is not hyperbolic and ridiculous to suggest that our energy use will drop very radically in the coming years. A large and sudden drop in energy use is characteristic of all civilization collapses.

No it does not. Olduvai theory holds that energy per capita peaked and began to decline in 1978 or 1979. Recent economic development in China has lead to a new world wide peak, but but the basic theory still holds, since no one expects a new peak to occur in the west. Duncan does mention the phrase "material standard of living" once. He says that material standard of living will inevitably decline due to collapse. So your argument here is another straw man.

Nope. Duncan never said it was, and I never said it was. So your argument here is another straw man.

Good. We agree.

OK.

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

...

 

I am not refusing to deal with your so called "statistics". I just think they are very misleading. But since you seem to want to make such a point about it, let's deal with your "statistics" in more detail, shall we?

The CNN article you referenced is just hype. It is based on the IEA's WEO 2012. Here is a much better article:

http://crudeoilpeak.info/us-shale-oil-hype

Here is the IEA graph. Very impressive:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Why are NGL's sandwiched in between oil production? NGL's are not oil. Very weird graph.

Here is a graph of actual production:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Here is the very different EIA estimate:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Here is the IEA graph with the data restacked to show oil separate from NGL's:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Here is the properly stacked graph seen from a longer view:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please read through the whole article I linked. It is obvious that the IEA forecast is not reliable. It is basically a bunch of hype.

So the very act of predicting a social collapse is hyperbolic? That is ironic. It is also begging the question.

In the aggregate, I am certain that I am correct. This would be because of the basic laws of physics, especially thermodynamics.

Please stop accusing me of not being up to date. I don't personally create all of the charts and graphs that I post, do you? That was the best, most up to date graph I could find that illustrated my point. Besides, contrary to what you say, there have not been any earth shaking developments in the last couple of years that render peak oil theory obsolete.

Will US production ever exceed the 1970 peak? As you can see from the last graph in this post, it is not predicted to. So the answer is yes, oil production will still basically fit a bell shaped curve, though it may not be exactly smooth and symmetrical.

It would have to exceed the 1970 peak of 9.6 million barrels a day in order to invalidate current peak oil theory. The bell shaped curve is theoretical production of any non renewable resource under ideal, unconstrained conditions. Actual production doesn't have to fit an exact, smooth bell curve to be consistent with peak oil theory. Saying it does is a straw man argument.

My statement was not hyperbole, it was a reductio ad absurdum, based on your inference that standard of living is somehow not dependent on energy use. I was highlighting how hyperbolic and ridiculous your inference was. By the way, as a separate point, it is not hyperbolic and ridiculous to suggest that our energy use will drop very radically in the coming years. A large and sudden drop in energy use is characteristic of all civilization collapses.

No it does not. Olduvai theory holds that energy per capita peaked and began to decline in 1978 or 1979. Recent economic development in China has lead to a new world wide peak, but but the basic theory still holds, since no one expects a new peak to occur in the west. Duncan does mention the phrase "material standard of living" once. He says that material standard of living will inevitably decline due to collapse. So your argument here is another straw man.

Nope. Duncan never said it was and I never said it was. So your argument here is another straw man.

Good. We agree.

OK.

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I can't post...

I just wrote a detailed post that took me an hour to compose. It is awaiting moderator approval. At the same time, I can no longer edit my posts, preventing me from using my workaround for the moderator approval bug. I have posted a thread about this in site feedback. I hope this issue is resolved soon.

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I am not refusing to deal with your so called "statistics". I just think they are very misleading. But since you seem to want to make such a point about it, let's deal with your "statistics" in more detail, shall we?

The CNN article you referenced is just hype. It is based on the IEA's WEO 2012. Here is a much better article:

http://crudeoilpeak.info/us-shale-oil-hype

Here is the IEA graph. Very impressive:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Why are NGL's sandwiched in between oil production? NGL's are not oil. Very weird graph.

Here is a graph of actual production:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Here is the very different EIA estimate:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Here is the IEA graph with the data restacked to show oil separate from NGL's:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Here is the properly stacked graph seen from a longer view:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please read through the whole article I linked. It is obvious that the IEA forecast is not reliable. It is basically a bunch of hype.

So the very act of predicting a social collapse is hyperbolic? That is ironic. It is also begging the question.

In the aggregate, I am certain that I am correct. This would be because of the basic laws of physics, especially thermodynamics.

Please stop accusing me of not being up to date. I don't personally create all of the charts and graphs that I post, do you? That was the best, most up to date graph I could find that illustrated my point. Besides, contrary to what you say, there have not been any earth shaking developments in the last couple of years that render peak oil theory obsolete.

Will US production ever exceed the 1970 peak? As you can see from the last graph in this post, it is not predicted to. So the answer is yes, oil production will still basically fit a bell shaped curve, though it may not be exactly smooth and symmetrical.

It would have to exceed the 1970 peak of 9.6 million barrels a day in order to invalidate current peak oil theory. The bell shaped curve is theoretical production of any non renewable resource under ideal, unconstrained conditions. Actual production doesn't have to fit an exact, smooth bell curve to be consistent with peak oil theory. Saying it does is a straw man argument.

My statement was not hyperbole, it was a reductio ad absurdum, based on your inference that standard of living is somehow not dependent on energy use. I was highlighting how hyperbolic and ridiculous your inference was. By the way, as a separate point, it is not hyperbolic and ridiculous to suggest that our energy use will drop very radically in the coming years. A large and sudden drop in energy use is characteristic of all civilization collapses.

No it does not. Olduvai theory holds that energy per capita peaked and began to decline in 1978 or 1979. Recent economic development in China has lead to a new world wide peak, but but the basic theory still holds, since no one expects a new peak to occur in the west. Duncan does mention the phrase "material standard of living" once. He says that material standard of living will inevitably decline due to collapse. So your argument here is another straw man.

Nope. Duncan never said it was and I never said it was. So your argument here is another straw man.

Good. We agree.

OK.

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I am not refusing to deal with your so called "statistics". I just think they are very misleading. But since you seem to want to make such a point about it, let's deal with your "statistics" in more detail, shall we?

The CNN article you referenced is just hype. It is based on the IEA's WEO 2012. Here is a much better article:

http://crudeoilpeak.info/us-shale-oil-hype

Here is the IEA graph. Very impressive:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Why are NGL's sandwiched in between oil production? NGL's are not oil. Very weird graph.

Here is a graph of actual production:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Here is the very different EIA estimate:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Here is the IEA graph with the data restacked to show oil separate from NGL's:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Here is the properly stacked graph seen from a longer view:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please read through the whole article I linked. It is obvious that the IEA forecast is not reliable. It is basically a bunch of hype.

So the very act of predicting a social collapse is hyperbolic? That is ironic. It is also begging the question.

In the aggregate, I am certain that I am correct. This would be because of the basic laws of physics, especially thermodynamics.

Please stop accusing me of not being up to date. I don't personally create all of the charts and graphs that I post, do you? That was the best, most up to date graph I could find that illustrated my point. Besides, contrary to what you say, there have not been any earth shaking developments in the last couple of years that render peak oil theory obsolete.

Will US production ever exceed the 1970 peak? As you can see from the last graph in this post, it is not predicted to. So the answer is yes, oil production will still basically fit a bell shaped curve, though it may not be exactly smooth and symmetrical.

It would have to exceed the 1970 peak of 9.6 million barrels a day in order to invalidate current peak oil theory. The bell shaped curve is theoretical production of any non renewable resource under ideal, unconstrained conditions. Actual production doesn't have to fit an exact, smooth bell curve to be consistent with peak oil theory. Saying it does is a straw man argument.

My statement was not hyperbole, it was a reductio ad absurdum, based on your inference that standard of living is somehow not dependent on energy use. I was highlighting how hyperbolic and ridiculous your inference was. By the way, as a separate point, it is not hyperbolic and ridiculous to suggest that our energy use will drop very radically in the coming years. A large and sudden drop in energy use is characteristic of all civilization collapses.

No it does not. Olduvai theory holds that energy per capita peaked and began to decline in 1978 or 1979. Recent economic development in China has lead to a new world wide peak, but but the basic theory still holds, since no one expects a new peak to occur in the west. Duncan does mention the phrase "material standard of living" once. He says that material standard of living will inevitably decline due to collapse. So your argument here is another straw man.

Nope. Duncan never said it was and I never said it was. So your argument here is another straw man.

Good. We agree.

OK.

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I thought I might try to work around this bug thing another way. I am going to try breaking my post up and posting it in sections in multiple posts. If the first section works, I will try to post the rest quickly to avoid having someone else post something in between.

I am not refusing to deal with your so called "statistics". I just think they are very misleading. But since you seem to want to make such a point about it, let's deal with your "statistics" in more detail, shall we?

to be continued in my next post...

 

...continued from my last post:

The CNN article you referenced is just hype. It is based on the IEA's WEO 2012. Here is a much better article:

http://crudeoilpeak.info/us-shale-oil-hype

Here is the IEA graph. Very impressive:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Why are NGL's sandwiched in between oil production? NGL's are not oil. Very weird graph.

Here is a graph of actual production:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Here is the very different EIA estimate:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Here is the IEA graph with the data restacked to show oil separate from NGL's:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Here is the properly stacked graph seen from a longer view:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please read through the whole article I linked. It is obvious that the IEA forecast is not reliable. It is basically a bunch of hype.

So the very act of predicting a social collapse is hyperbolic? That is ironic. It is also begging the question.

In the aggregate, I am certain that I am correct. This would be because of the basic laws of physics, especially thermodynamics.

Please stop accusing me of not being up to date. I don't personally create all of the charts and graphs that I post, do you? That was the best, most up to date graph I could find that illustrated my point. Besides, contrary to what you say, there have not been any earth shaking developments in the last couple of years that render peak oil theory obsolete.

Will US production ever exceed the 1970 peak? As you can see from the last graph in this post, it is not predicted to. So the answer is yes, oil production will still basically fit a bell shaped curve, though it may not be exactly smooth and symmetrical.

It would have to exceed the 1970 peak of 9.6 million barrels a day in order to invalidate current peak oil theory. The bell shaped curve is theoretical production of any non renewable resource under ideal, unconstrained conditions. Actual production doesn't have to fit an exact, smooth bell curve to be consistent with peak oil theory. Saying it does is a straw man argument.

My statement was not hyperbole, it was a reductio ad absurdum, based on your inference that standard of living is somehow not dependent on energy use. I was highlighting how hyperbolic and ridiculous your inference was. By the way, as a separate point, it is not hyperbolic and ridiculous to suggest that our energy use will drop very radically in the coming years. A large and sudden drop in energy use is characteristic of all civilization collapses.

No it does not. Olduvai theory holds that energy per capita peaked and began to decline in 1978 or 1979. Recent economic development in China has lead to a new world wide peak, but but the basic theory still holds, since no one expects a new peak to occur in the west. Duncan does mention the phrase "material standard of living" once. He says that material standard of living will inevitably decline due to collapse. So your argument here is another straw man.

Nope. Duncan never said it was and I never said it was. So your argument here is another straw man.

Good. We agree.

OK.

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

...continued from my last post.

The CNN article you referenced is just hype. It is based on the IEA's WEO 2012. Here is a much better article:

http://crudeoilpeak.info/us-shale-oil-hype

to be continued in my next post...

 

...continued from my last post.

Here is the IEA graph. Very impressive:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Why are NGL's sandwiched in between oil production? NGL's are not oil. Very weird graph.

Here is a graph of actual production:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Here is the very different EIA estimate:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Here is the IEA graph with the data restacked to show oil separate from NGL's:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Here is the properly stacked graph seen from a longer view:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please read through the whole article I linked. It is obvious that the IEA forecast is not reliable. It is basically a bunch of hype.

To be continued in my next post...

 

...continued from my last post.

Here is the IEA graph. Very impressive:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Why are NGL's sandwiched in between oil production? NGL's are not oil. Very weird graph.

Here is a graph of actual production:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Here is the very different EIA estimate:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

to be continued...

 

...continued from my last post.

Here is the IEA graph. Very impressive:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

To be continued...

 

OK, I give up. I couldn't get any more of my post to post. I hope the moderators don't just clear the cue and post all of my attempts. What a mess. I wonder how long this will take. It has already been 3 hours.

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

OK, this is ridiculous. The cue has been cleared and every attempt I made to work around the posting bug has now been posted. Wonderful. It should be noted here that I asked the mods to please not just clear the cue onto the thread. But it seems to have happened anyway. I apologize to the readers for the disruption caused by the persistent posting bug.

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!