Apocalypse Soon?

Status
Not open for further replies.
So what you are saying is that we can produce all the oil we need for the next 30 years all by ourselves, as long as we can keep buying it from other countries. OK.

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.
 
I am very up to date on the stats. What makes you think I am not? I said that your statement was hyperbolic:

Yep, your statement was hyperbolic.
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.
I am aware of the concept of energy intensity. Why would you say I wasn't?
You seem to believe that decreasing energy use must cause a decrease in standard of living.
Do you think that our energy intensity could decline to zero while our standard of living just keeps on rising?
No, I didn't say that.
Really?

Bakken-Bump-2-17-2012-10-49-08.jpg


It still looks like a bell curve to me. This graph puts your "revolutionary" "meteoric rise" in US oil and gas production into proper perspective.
Like I said, I'm surprised you aren't keeping up to date: That graph is two years out of date.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?
 
Now I can't seem to edit, so I'll quote and add:
If it keeps rising for another decade, as predicted, will that still fit a bell curve?
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.
 
And expansion on another one:
You seem to believe that decreasing energy use must cause a decrease in standard of living.

No, I didn't say that. [re: a decline to zero]
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).
 
Um....natural gas is less than half its peak in 2008, despite a massive increase in production, with no end in sight.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n3035us3m.htm
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.

And with that and the explosion in natural gas electrical production, the average cost of electricity has dropped a few percent in the past two years: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/
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.
 
Not on my bill! In fact, it's increased a bit over last year.
Do you have any bills from 2008 handy?
Like i said, if production price declines, the supplier simply picks up the difference in extra profit.
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.
 
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.
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

The IEA WEO 2012 (OECD, Paris) uses higher shale oil (tight oil) forecasts than the US based EIA, published just 4 months earlier. That allows the IEA to calculate a higher oil production for the US compared to Saudi Arabia, but only for 10 years. Moreover, the excess is small – just 500 kb/d – and well within the accuracy of forecasts so many years into the future. So the “US overtaking Saudi Arabia” message is neither certain to actually materialize nor very useful. An assumed Saudi production increase of 1.5 mb/d after 2025 is equally uncertain. So at best we may get a head-to-head race. Nowhere is there any statement in the WEO 2012 that the US will become oil-self-sufficient or even a net oil exporter, as often implied in media stories.

Here is the IEA graph. Very impressive:

WEO_2012_Fig_3_18_US_production.jpg


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

Here is a graph of actual production:

US_field_production_crude_Aug_2012.jpg


Here is the very different EIA estimate:

AEO2012Crude.png


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

WEO_2012_Fig_3_18_US_production_restacked.jpg


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

US_vs_Saudi_crude_oil_actual_EIA_projection_IEA_Husseini_to_2035.jpg


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.


Not to mention the irony of someone who is predicting a collapse of civilization calling anyone hyperbolic.

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

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

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

Like I said, I'm surprised you aren't keeping up to date: That graph is two years out of date.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So I assumed you agreed that energy intensity was a direct measure of standard of living.

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

My point is that it isn't.

Good. We agree.

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).

OK.

---Futilitist:cool:
 
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.
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

The IEA WEO 2012 (OECD, Paris) uses higher shale oil (tight oil) forecasts than the US based EIA, published just 4 months earlier. That allows the IEA to calculate a higher oil production for the US compared to Saudi Arabia, but only for 10 years. Moreover, the excess is small – just 500 kb/d – and well within the accuracy of forecasts so many years into the future. So the “US overtaking Saudi Arabia” message is neither certain to actually materialize nor very useful. An assumed Saudi production increase of 1.5 mb/d after 2025 is equally uncertain. So at best we may get a head-to-head race. Nowhere is there any statement in the WEO 2012 that the US will become oil-self-sufficient or even a net oil exporter, as often implied in media stories.

Here is the IEA graph. Very impressive:

WEO_2012_Fig_3_18_US_production.jpg


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

Here is a graph of actual production:

US_field_production_crude_Aug_2012.jpg


Here is the very different EIA estimate:

AEO2012Crude.png


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

WEO_2012_Fig_3_18_US_production_restacked.jpg


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

US_vs_Saudi_crude_oil_actual_EIA_projection_IEA_Husseini_to_2035.jpg


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.


Not to mention the irony of someone who is predicting a collapse of civilization calling anyone hyperbolic.

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

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

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

Like I said, I'm surprised you aren't keeping up to date: That graph is two years out of date.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So I assumed you agreed that energy intensity was a direct measure of standard of living.

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

My point is that it isn't.

Good. We agree.

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).

OK.

---Futilitist:cool:
 
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:cool:
 
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.
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

The IEA WEO 2012 (OECD, Paris) uses higher shale oil (tight oil) forecasts than the US based EIA, published just 4 months earlier. That allows the IEA to calculate a higher oil production for the US compared to Saudi Arabia, but only for 10 years. Moreover, the excess is small – just 500 kb/d – and well within the accuracy of forecasts so many years into the future. So the “US overtaking Saudi Arabia” message is neither certain to actually materialize nor very useful. An assumed Saudi production increase of 1.5 mb/d after 2025 is equally uncertain. So at best we may get a head-to-head race. Nowhere is there any statement in the WEO 2012 that the US will become oil-self-sufficient or even a net oil exporter, as often implied in media stories.

Here is the IEA graph. Very impressive:

WEO_2012_Fig_3_18_US_production.jpg


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

Here is a graph of actual production:

US_field_production_crude_Aug_2012.jpg


Here is the very different EIA estimate:

AEO2012Crude.png


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

WEO_2012_Fig_3_18_US_production_restacked.jpg


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

US_vs_Saudi_crude_oil_actual_EIA_projection_IEA_Husseini_to_2035.jpg


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.


Not to mention the irony of someone who is predicting a collapse of civilization calling anyone hyperbolic.

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

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

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

Like I said, I'm surprised you aren't keeping up to date: That graph is two years out of date.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So I assumed you agreed that energy intensity was a direct measure of standard of living.

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

My point is that it isn't.

Good. We agree.

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).

OK.

---Futilitist:cool:
 
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.
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

The IEA WEO 2012 (OECD, Paris) uses higher shale oil (tight oil) forecasts than the US based EIA, published just 4 months earlier. That allows the IEA to calculate a higher oil production for the US compared to Saudi Arabia, but only for 10 years. Moreover, the excess is small – just 500 kb/d – and well within the accuracy of forecasts so many years into the future. So the “US overtaking Saudi Arabia” message is neither certain to actually materialize nor very useful. An assumed Saudi production increase of 1.5 mb/d after 2025 is equally uncertain. So at best we may get a head-to-head race. Nowhere is there any statement in the WEO 2012 that the US will become oil-self-sufficient or even a net oil exporter, as often implied in media stories.

Here is the IEA graph. Very impressive:

WEO_2012_Fig_3_18_US_production.jpg


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

Here is a graph of actual production:

US_field_production_crude_Aug_2012.jpg


Here is the very different EIA estimate:

AEO2012Crude.png


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

WEO_2012_Fig_3_18_US_production_restacked.jpg


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

US_vs_Saudi_crude_oil_actual_EIA_projection_IEA_Husseini_to_2035.jpg


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.


Not to mention the irony of someone who is predicting a collapse of civilization calling anyone hyperbolic.

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

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

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

Like I said, I'm surprised you aren't keeping up to date: That graph is two years out of date.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So I assumed you agreed that energy intensity was a direct measure of standard of living.

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

My point is that it isn't.

Good. We agree.

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).

OK.

---Futilitist:cool:
 
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.

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.
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

The IEA WEO 2012 (OECD, Paris) uses higher shale oil (tight oil) forecasts than the US based EIA, published just 4 months earlier. That allows the IEA to calculate a higher oil production for the US compared to Saudi Arabia, but only for 10 years. Moreover, the excess is small – just 500 kb/d – and well within the accuracy of forecasts so many years into the future. So the “US overtaking Saudi Arabia” message is neither certain to actually materialize nor very useful. An assumed Saudi production increase of 1.5 mb/d after 2025 is equally uncertain. So at best we may get a head-to-head race. Nowhere is there any statement in the WEO 2012 that the US will become oil-self-sufficient or even a net oil exporter, as often implied in media stories.

Here is the IEA graph. Very impressive:

WEO_2012_Fig_3_18_US_production.jpg


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

Here is a graph of actual production:

US_field_production_crude_Aug_2012.jpg


Here is the very different EIA estimate:

AEO2012Crude.png


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

WEO_2012_Fig_3_18_US_production_restacked.jpg


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

US_vs_Saudi_crude_oil_actual_EIA_projection_IEA_Husseini_to_2035.jpg


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.


Not to mention the irony of someone who is predicting a collapse of civilization calling anyone hyperbolic.

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

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

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

Like I said, I'm surprised you aren't keeping up to date: That graph is two years out of date.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So I assumed you agreed that energy intensity was a direct measure of standard of living.

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

My point is that it isn't.

Good. We agree.

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).

OK.

---Futilitist:cool:
 
...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

The IEA WEO 2012 (OECD, Paris) uses higher shale oil (tight oil) forecasts than the US based EIA, published just 4 months earlier. That allows the IEA to calculate a higher oil production for the US compared to Saudi Arabia, but only for 10 years. Moreover, the excess is small – just 500 kb/d – and well within the accuracy of forecasts so many years into the future. So the “US overtaking Saudi Arabia” message is neither certain to actually materialize nor very useful. An assumed Saudi production increase of 1.5 mb/d after 2025 is equally uncertain. So at best we may get a head-to-head race. Nowhere is there any statement in the WEO 2012 that the US will become oil-self-sufficient or even a net oil exporter, as often implied in media stories.

to be continued in my next post...
 
...continued from my last post.

Here is the IEA graph. Very impressive:

WEO_2012_Fig_3_18_US_production.jpg


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

Here is a graph of actual production:

US_field_production_crude_Aug_2012.jpg


Here is the very different EIA estimate:

AEO2012Crude.png


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

WEO_2012_Fig_3_18_US_production_restacked.jpg


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

US_vs_Saudi_crude_oil_actual_EIA_projection_IEA_Husseini_to_2035.jpg


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:

WEO_2012_Fig_3_18_US_production.jpg


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

Here is a graph of actual production:

US_field_production_crude_Aug_2012.jpg


Here is the very different EIA estimate:

AEO2012Crude.png


to be continued...
 
...continued from my last post.

Here is the IEA graph. Very impressive:

WEO_2012_Fig_3_18_US_production.jpg


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:cool:
 
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:cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top