Another Peak Oil Cufuffle
Inquiring Naybob Kirk has some insightful comments on the subject of Peak Oil. The Nattering One thanks you for your insightful thoughts on this subject.
I agree with the economic practicality theory you present, as it is based on monetary reality and common sense.
Perhaps this economic motive will drive us to become less dependent on energy sources from providers whose religious and political interests, will NEVER have our best interests at heart.
A couple of things, your comments in quotes:
1. "my functional definition of Peak Oil isn't that it runs out. It's that the cost of extraction becomes prohibitive relative to the amount obtained."
Your definition should be renamed, so as not to play into the "peak oil" fear mongering mindset that spooks the herd into believing the boogey man exists. (i.e. we are soon to run out of oil.) Perhaps the "cost effective" or "economic practicality" theory would be more aprapo.
2. "You argue that there is no 'peak oil' because even if S/L should run out we've plenty of alternatives."
Alternatives are part of the argument and I digress to my "necessity is the mother of invention" discourse regarding alleviation of dependency on foreign energy sources.
However, my MAIN point of contention is the opposite of "peak oil" in that we are NOT running out of crude oil.
The "peak oil" promoters claim that the fields are tapped or near tapped. Yet, they have no scientifically accepted empirical evidence to prove this theory.
Earlier this week the Saudi's announcement of experimentation with new methods of heavy crude extraction dropped crude by 2%.
"Peak oil" is nothing more than an unproven and unsubstantiated theory with no scientific backing. I.e. right up there with urban myths and general BS.
Yet, the promoters of this BS theory have gotten it mainstreamed in academic circles and the media to the point where it is accepted as fact by supposedly intelligent individuals.
Ask yourself who are the promoters? and what is their motivation? To find the answers, always follow the money: 2000 $9 a barrel, 2006 $75 a barrel, all due to speculative money seeking yield.
And having nothing to do with supply side economics outside of an orchestrated production squeeze at the refinery level.
Ok, theres the why, now who profited? OPEC, the speculators and the oil companies themselves. Questions answered as to who and why.
Regarding the urban myth or BS theory known as "peak oil". The best analogy I can give is this...
Last time I checked, if I say I have a device that can control gravity or a device that can run an engine on water...
I can submit a patent application on the "device" and will be issued a valid patent on said device. Regardless of whether said device works or even exists. Does this mean I can control gravity or run an engine on water? NOT.
The final question you have to ask is: Why are so many supposedly intelligent people getting sucked into the telling of such a big lie?
The potential answers to this question disturb me far more than the miniscule and unprovable possibility that the "peak oil" theory might be in the least bit true. More to come in Part II.
Another Peak Oil Cufuffle
Another Peak Oil Cufuffle Part II
Another Peak Oil Cufuffle Part III
Another Peak Oil Cufuffle Part IV
Another Peak Oil Cufuffle Part V
Another Peak Oil Cufuffle Part VI
Another Peak Oil Cufuffle Part VII
Another Peak Oil Cufuffle Epilogue
I agree with the economic practicality theory you present, as it is based on monetary reality and common sense.
Perhaps this economic motive will drive us to become less dependent on energy sources from providers whose religious and political interests, will NEVER have our best interests at heart.
A couple of things, your comments in quotes:
1. "my functional definition of Peak Oil isn't that it runs out. It's that the cost of extraction becomes prohibitive relative to the amount obtained."
Your definition should be renamed, so as not to play into the "peak oil" fear mongering mindset that spooks the herd into believing the boogey man exists. (i.e. we are soon to run out of oil.) Perhaps the "cost effective" or "economic practicality" theory would be more aprapo.
2. "You argue that there is no 'peak oil' because even if S/L should run out we've plenty of alternatives."
Alternatives are part of the argument and I digress to my "necessity is the mother of invention" discourse regarding alleviation of dependency on foreign energy sources.
However, my MAIN point of contention is the opposite of "peak oil" in that we are NOT running out of crude oil.
The "peak oil" promoters claim that the fields are tapped or near tapped. Yet, they have no scientifically accepted empirical evidence to prove this theory.
Earlier this week the Saudi's announcement of experimentation with new methods of heavy crude extraction dropped crude by 2%.
"Peak oil" is nothing more than an unproven and unsubstantiated theory with no scientific backing. I.e. right up there with urban myths and general BS.
Yet, the promoters of this BS theory have gotten it mainstreamed in academic circles and the media to the point where it is accepted as fact by supposedly intelligent individuals.
Ask yourself who are the promoters? and what is their motivation? To find the answers, always follow the money: 2000 $9 a barrel, 2006 $75 a barrel, all due to speculative money seeking yield.
And having nothing to do with supply side economics outside of an orchestrated production squeeze at the refinery level.
Ok, theres the why, now who profited? OPEC, the speculators and the oil companies themselves. Questions answered as to who and why.
Regarding the urban myth or BS theory known as "peak oil". The best analogy I can give is this...
Last time I checked, if I say I have a device that can control gravity or a device that can run an engine on water...
I can submit a patent application on the "device" and will be issued a valid patent on said device. Regardless of whether said device works or even exists. Does this mean I can control gravity or run an engine on water? NOT.
The final question you have to ask is: Why are so many supposedly intelligent people getting sucked into the telling of such a big lie?
The potential answers to this question disturb me far more than the miniscule and unprovable possibility that the "peak oil" theory might be in the least bit true. More to come in Part II.
Another Peak Oil Cufuffle
Another Peak Oil Cufuffle Part II
Another Peak Oil Cufuffle Part III
Another Peak Oil Cufuffle Part IV
Another Peak Oil Cufuffle Part V
Another Peak Oil Cufuffle Part VI
Another Peak Oil Cufuffle Part VII
Another Peak Oil Cufuffle Epilogue
Comments
You say 'the "peak oil" promoters claim that the fields are tapped or near tapped. Yet, they have no scientifically accepted empirical evidence to prove this theory.'
Well, as a 'Peak Oil Promoter' I don't say that, and I've never hear of of my PO fellows say that either. PO is about hitting the point of maximum global oil extraction. Not that the fields are "tapped or near tapped" a phrase I'd never heard used until I saw your site.
If we were to follow your statement for a moment it would also surely be true that you then must have "no scientifically accepted empirical evidence to disprove this theory". But I digress.
You also say '"Peak oil" is nothing more than an unproven and unsubstantiated theory with no scientific backing. I.e. right up there with urban myths and general BS.'
Now let's look at this for a moment:
a) We can probably both agree that the world contains a finite amount of oil, unless you happen to be one of the fringe on a fringe believing in Abiotic oil.
b) So, at some point we will run out oil
c) So, at some point we will have used half of that amount
d) All oil field extraction profiles show that an oil field's output, bar a few hiccups around the plateau, rises to a peak, levels out and then falls away. This is empirical fact recorded in thousands of actual, real oil fields around the world
e) Global extraction is an aggregate of all constituent fields - as best as can be done given the available data
f) Global extraction will therefore rise to a peak/plateau and then fall away.
g) PO theory posits that we are either at or within a decade of that point.
h) After this point, global extraction falls to, effectively 0 at some future point - maybe 60 or 70 years away, although the date is not particularly important as much as the fact that we will be demanding oil that can no longer be supplied cheaply and possibly not at all.
PO, as we're always at pains to point out is not "the end of oil" but "the end of cheap oil". A very different thing. For the West, which is predicated on never-ending cheap oil, this is a serious problem.
Given the above, why do you think there is so little possibility that the miniscule and unprovable possibility that the "peak oil" theory might be in the least bit true. Particularly as field depletion itself is entirely provable - let's wait and see when total extraction levels from the North Sea exceed their peak attained in 1999. Let's wait for the lower 48 US states to again exceed their maximum attained in 1971. How long do you think we need to wait before we can safely say that that won't happen? Another 2 years? 10 years? 30 years? I won't endlessly detail, but there are many, many actually recorded instances from all oil producing regions of this pattern. You, presumably, are aware of fields where this trend has been reversed, so could you please supply their names?
Well, that's enough for now. Thank you for listening.
Thank you for the thought provoking commentary.
I am glad that you do not engage in the fear mongering aspect of this "theory".
To respond, I will be posting some additional thoughts in the near future.
The Nattering One