397. DEFFEYES CRAPS OUT AGAIN
Interesting news today from Robert Rapier. Official EIA stats now show that 2008 set a new record for annual oil (crude + condensate) production.
Which means that Ken Deffeyes has crapped out once again, adding yet another flub to his long and sorry list of blown predictions. I've gone into depth about this before, but here's the recap. When we last left him, Ken had erroneously predicted peak oil for:
2000
2003
2004-2008
2004
Nov. 24 2005
Dec. 16 2005
Nov. 2005-April 2006
In early 2007, Deffeyes waffled once again -- this time backwards, to May 2005.
The US Energy Information Agency publishes monthly estimates of world oil production at www.eia.doe.gov/ipm/t11d.xls. (Microsoft Office Excel Workbook) Of course, we hope that their estimates are not politically biased. Their current posting shows May 2005 as the month of greatest world oil production. Earlier, I estimated that the peak would be in December, 2005, but May will do. I'll take it. I'll take it.SourceAs you would expect, this latest adjustment also turned out wrong. According to the very spreadsheet Ken references, the May 2005 level 74.241kbd was surpassed in July 2008, reaching 74.831kbd. Naturally, he had nothing to say about this on his website. For him, making predictions is like a bear shitting in the woods. Just kick some dirt over the last one when it starts reeking, and grunt out the next one.
Of course, there's always the old standby: "We'll see who gets the last laugh, JD. Someday Ken's going to be right." Actually, I would dispute that. My current conjecture is that oil will never peak as long as Ken Deffeyes is making predictions. That's how truly rank his predictions are. But whenever Ken finally shuts up and oil actually peaks, it's not going to be Ken who is proven right. We're all going to be proven right. Me, Mike Lynch, Daniel Yergin, CERA... literally everyone (aside from the mentally retarded) concedes that oil will peak. So on that glorious day when we're all proven right, I say we all go out for a rousing mutual backslap and group hug!
More broadly, we should note that Ken, like many peak oilers, has been trying to stack the deck by restricting his prediction to conventional crude. The reality is that Ken's "peak" is being swamped by flows of unconventional liquids such as tar sands and (most importantly) NGL, as you can see in the IEA figures for total liquids:
A while back, Ken liked to talk about the "Cornucopian Cemetery", where cornucopians go when they admit that oil has already peaked. We have a similar feature here at Peak Oil Debunked. I call it the Peak Oil Prophet's cemetery. It's where you go after your 9th incompetent prediction of the peak oil date craps out.Hey Ken. Your ride is here.
by JD
posted by JD @ 3:45 AM
55 comments
55 Comments:
As always, please use the Name/URL option (you don't have to register, just enter a screen-name) or sign your anonymous post at the bottom. The conversation is better without multiple anons. ANONYMOUS POSTS ARE SUBJECT TO DELETION.
Thank you!
JD
I've been noticing a disturbing trend in many of the news stories linked to by leanan in the "Drumbeat": most of them are by local journalists writing for local papers who have just now stumbled onto ideas like peak oil and authors like James Kunstler, Richard Heinberg or even Kenneth Deffeyes. They report with all the innocence of children, playing back every simplistic idea and analysis as if it were the gospel truth. And the number of bogus titles bestowed upon these amateurs is astounding: 'peak oil expert', 'energy analyst', 'sustainable communities expert', 'suburban critic' (guess who that applies to!) as if any of these connote any qualification beyond "restless technophobes with too much time on their hands".
Now I'm not trashing amateur research and analysis per se, since a lot of what I do would fall under that heading, especially now that I'm getting more interested in topics like energy, economics and environment which are outside my academic training. But would it be too much to ask for these journalists to read Robin Mills, Leonardo Maugeri and Daniel Yergin together with Deffeyes, Campbell and Goodstein?
It's kinda easy to do cherry picking with peak oil -issues. The predictions are of such nature that most often they are more or less wrong. The peak oil -media is very good at this. Also I'd guess once you've just learned about peak oil you just want to hog as much information as possible without neccessarily doing a whole lot of checking regarding the claims being made. Nasty.
JD Walters,
That's what people call an "Echo Chamber". Peak Oil is turning itself into a cult status. But the kind of cult as in "E-Rated movies cult". The kind of movies that are so, so bad, that only two types of people like to chat about them.
The people that enjoy to crow in the mischievements of others (ahah, that's most of us), and the nutters.
There's also the joy of seeing something so bad, that it gets funny for being so.
Like the Flash Motion Picture.
"Peak" Oil Cover for Political Agenda
With all the failed predictions, ad nauseam, it's clear in this writers mind that "Peak" oil is cover for a political agenda.
It's like the old joke about the chicken crossing the road. Why does the "Peak" oil predictor cross the road? Answer: To have his predictions run over.
Sadly, there are two groups involved, those from the hard core left, who think modern society is rapacious and those that have investments in oil & gas and energy generally.
Offshore oil, and now natural gas has just started being tapped (actually, it's been going on for a while, but in terms of the potential supply out there in the deep).
My informed bet is that the majority of the world's oil & natural gas are in offshore locations, 75% of which have not been explored.
When I mention offshore oil supplies and the territory yet to be explored, "Peak" oilers go silent, they don't have an answer.
"Peak" oil is not for the informed, who know the geologic reality.
It's for the uninformed who can be buffaloed, and those predisposed to accept the doom & gloom world outlook.
That's why "Peak" oilers, simply move on to the next person, the next group and repeat their mantra.
As Barnum stated: There's a sucker born every minute. Peakers count on this sad reality.
This reminds me of Mathew Simmons. Mr. Simmons is still sticking to his bet that oil will average $300 a barrel next year. The clock's ticking, Simmons.
BTW - the Oil Drum had some "lordy, lordy" predictions recently: oil crapping out to 20 mbpd by 2012 because of the financial meltdown, another saying it will anorexic ally shrink by a near 10 mbpd in 2012, then gliding down to 60 mbpd by 2015. And was there any hard data to back either of these up? Just intuitions based on fudgy math scribbled on the back of their asses... you get the idea.
And sadly... they're still sticking to their assertion that Ghawar peaked in 2005. Where's the 8% annual decline the peaktards have been spurting since?
My informed bet is that the majority of the world's oil & natural gas are in offshore locations, 75% of which have not been explored.
Yes sure, there's also plenty of oil in the oil sands, the orinoco belt, and other unconventional places. That doesn't mean we will ever actually pump them up though. At some point another energy source for propulsion may actually be cheaper. But AFAIK most of these areas have been explored. Because in general we know where to look for oil. I find it a bit odd that someone's hyping about offshore oil at this moment. If you know numbers i don't, you're welcome to correct me. Remember we're talking about potential flows of oil and not the size of the resource itself.
JD -
Not sure there is much to crow about here. "2008 has officially eclipsed the previous 2005 peak for the all-time annual oil production record, albeit just barely over 2005."
Additionally, BP's Year in Review shows 2007 global production down 0.2% over 2006 production.
Of which:
EU -0.9%
OECD -1.4%
OPEC -1.2%
Non OPEC -0.7%
Former USSR +3.9%
2007 demand was 8522000 barrels a day and production was 81533000 barrels a day for a shortfall of 4687000 barrels per day.
BP's Year in Review is widely accepted as the most accurate global energy numbers available. It will be interesting to see what the 2009 Year in Review has to say about 2008 when it comes out in May.
http://www.bp.com/productlanding.do?categoryId=6929&contentId=7044622
Doubtful
@ Babun:
Offshore oil technology has achieved a revolution in the last 10 years, large amounts of ultra-deep water, ultra-deep drilling production is already taking place.
The technology to get the oil out is here & now and being used at this very second.
Is it expensive? Yes, but no where near as expensive as oil sand or oil shale. Remember, Saudi oil costs about $2.50 a barrel to produce, few can compete with that. Oil sands and shale cost about $70 a barrel (barely a profit) to produce plus incredible environmental tax. Ultra-deep water, ultra-deep drilling is economically comfortable at $70 a barrel (meaning highly acceptable economic return on investment).
Even at $45 a barrel the oil industry can tread water on ultra-deep water, ultra-deep drilling. Does the oil industry want to "merely tread economic water"?
Obviously not.
And most important, the technology to get this ultra-deep water, ultra-deep drilling oil is still advancing in leaps & bounds and it's maturing as well so the cost to produce ultra-deep water, ultra-deep drilling is dropping.
Also, recovery rates from these same oil wells are going up, too.
To put it in different terms, someday the world's oil supplies could be over-taxed, but that "someday" is far-off into the future, over 30 years away, in other words, over the economic horizon, which is to say actual physical "Peak" oil concerns have no impact on today's economic climate.
It's all in our heads.
I do have a question. In the chart, we see global fuel production reaching nearly 88 mbd. Then, we see EIA talking about 74 mbd global daily production. That's a 14 mbd spread!
BP has even a different set of numbers.
Where does the 88 mbd number come from?
Not sure there is much to crow about here.
The purpose of this post isn't to crow about the new peak. As frequently noted, this site sees the solution of peak oil on the demand side, not the supply side. See the primer if you need more info.
The purpose of this post is, first of all, to point out a relevant and important fact regarding the peak oil phenomenon, i.e. that a new record was set in 2008. Surely we can all agree that this is something which should be reported by any fact-based peak oil website. So here's a question for you: Why doesn't the Oil Drum report it?
The second purpose of this post is to give Ken Deffeyes a black eye for being a pompous, incompetent ass. Here's what he said, two failed predictions ago on Feb. 11, 2006:
"That's it. I can now refer to the world oil peak in the past tense. My career as a prophet is over. I'm now an historian."Link
Sorry Ken, you're not a prophet or a historian. The record has clearly shown, over and over, that your predictions and statements are complete shit.
In the chart, we see global fuel production reaching nearly 88 mbd. Then, we see EIA talking about 74 mbd global daily production. That's a 14 mbd spread!
Benny, 74 is conventional crude (crude + condensate, or C&C). 88 is liquids, which also includes non-conventional oil and biofuels. Most of the 14 mbd difference comes from NGL (natural gas liquids).
All I can say is this:
AHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
What's with the hearse?? Are you wishing death on Ken Deffeyes? You know that's nuts, right? And kind of disgusting? Can't you make your case without this kind of hatred?
Jamey,
I don't think it's all that hateful, considering that it's just a play on what Deffeyes said about the "cornucopians" and going to a "cemetery." I think JD is simply implying that Ken is going to go to the same place (in terms of relevance) that he claimed the "cornucopians" will go.
What I read in those numbers is with a very high price for oil and unprecedented investments, liquid production has gone up by only 3 mbpd (or about 3.5%) during that period. This is not even keeping up with population growth (there is anout 300 million more people now than in May 2005), let alone economic growth.
Had production kept up with those we should have been pumping some 92-93 mbpd by now. This to me points to a real peak, or at the very least a plateau. Remember, you need to bring a lot of new production, year after year, to keep with with declines from existing fields. Some production has been hampered by political/environmental factors, but you have major players, like Norway and the UK, which are in full decline, and you can't blame that on incompetent dictators.
To those of you saying demand has peaked, I'll remind you that hundreds of millions of people in the 3rd world would love nothing better than owning a car and a house as soon as they can afford it. The pent-up demand is there. While Johnny trades in his SUV for a subcompact, Wong, Jaspreet and Juan will be buying their first cars.
The worldwide economic recession/depression/collapse (take your pick) makes the whole business moot anyway. Doomers won't care anyway that Deffeyes was wrong, they're having a field day now with all the negative events.
What I read in those numbers is with a very high price for oil and unprecedented investments, liquid production has gone up by only 3 mbpd (or about 3.5%) during that period. This is not even keeping up with population growth (there is anout 300 million more people now than in May 2005), let alone economic growth.
OK, let's look at this a bit more closely. Which period are you referring to? 2005 to 2008? Because three years is not a terribly long time in an industry with lag times upwards of a decade, and "only 3%" is actually fairly impressive given the scope of the projects undertaken in that period.
The 2008 price spike should not be taken as a demand-only price.
Had production kept up with those we should have been pumping some 92-93 mbpd by now.
Why? Just because there are more people doesn't mean that there's 92-93 mil bbl/day demand. Where did you get that figure from?
This to me points to a real peak, or at the very least a plateau. Remember, you need to bring a lot of new production, year after year, to keep with with declines from existing fields. Some production has been hampered by political/environmental factors, but you have major players, like Norway and the UK, which are in full decline, and you can't blame that on incompetent dictators.
You also have players like the United States that have been "in decline for decades" who could probably experience a second peak given the right circumstances. A decline in production is not always geological in nature. Look at Iraq.
Regardless, you're saying we're experiencing a peak/plateau during periods of oil production growth. You can't have it both ways.
To those of you saying demand has peaked, I'll remind you that hundreds of millions of people in the 3rd world would love nothing better than owning a car and a house as soon as they can afford it. The pent-up demand is there. While Johnny trades in his SUV for a subcompact, Wong, Jaspreet and Juan will be buying their first cars.
Sorry, but this reeks of latent third world distrust. First off, you're assuming a lot of things here:
1. That China and India and... Spanishland have INSATIABLE demand for cars. And that their economies will NEVER STOP GROWING. One of the big areas of study amongst China economists is whether or not there's a point where the middle class stops growing. You're not going to see a developed Western China any time soon.
2. That price doesn't matter to Chinese, Indians, and Spanishers. It does. Assuming this future occurs where demand goes up and production doesn't, price will also go up, curtailing their demand. Think American demand for gas is elastic? Wait until the Chinese and Indians start paying market prices!
3. That the Chinese and Indians don't leapfrog into hybrids/PHEVs as Americans do. Even assuming they don't, you will not see the penetration of autos that you see here-- the wealth is growing, but it's just not close to the US/Japan/Europe.
The worldwide economic recession/depression/collapse (take your pick) makes the whole business moot anyway. Doomers won't care anyway that Deffeyes was wrong, they're having a field day now with all the negative events.
Yup. Anything that means that people will suffer and/or die. What a sad outlook...
Jamey,
Ari's correct. Ken was the one who started the cycle of hate by talking about sending people to the cemetery. I'm just paying him the same courtesy. It's all in good fun. If I were going to actually wish death on somebody, I'd target somebody who really deserved it, like Jan Lundberg. :-)
Some comments by Edward Morse, who gave a lecture here at Princeton a few days ago, are appropriate to the question of why oil production apparently increased so little even when the price went so high.
First of all, the one variable that tracks the price of oil more faithfully than all the others is not total supply vs. total demand, but rather spare capacity. Prices shot up, according to Morse, due primarily to two factors:
1) The increasing U.S. appetite for cheap energy, rising consumption and falling production, but most importantly
2) After more than a decade of being complacent about investment due to low prices, Saudi Arabia (and the rest of the world) was surprised when promised increases in production from some OPEC countries (Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Nigeria) fell far short of expectations.
The resulting erosion in spare capacity (which reached its nadir in summer 2008) increased the risk premium on oil dramatically: any little disruption in supply (such as might have happened if Nigerian rebels were more successful in their sabotaging, or if Iran had cut off the strait of Hormuz) would create a genuine shortage of supply.
The Saudis, however, went on a binge campaign to increase their own production, and today with oil prices having plummeted and the new investments bearing fruit, spare capacity has mushroomed again. (I wish I could show you the graph he used showing how spare capacity has increased in the past year or so: it really is amazing)
And that, incidentally, is why it is very unlikely that the price of oil will rebound sharply with a sharp rise in demand (which is itself unlikely due to the historical fact that oil demand takes a long time to recover after a price spike, and may never fully do so): with Saudi spare capacity now up substantially, it can use the threat of increased production to maintain oil prices within a band which it finds acceptable, between about 40 (the minimum they want it to be at in order for exports to be profitable) and 75 dollars (beyond that oil exports of Saudi's rivals become more profitable).
I apologize if the above comments are lacking in rigor, I'm writing this from the rough notes I took at Edward Morse's talk. What I took away, though, is that energy economics are much more complex than most peak oilers, even the more technically accomplished geologists, comprehend.
Oh, and Edward Morse mentioned another good reason why demand for oil in Western nations is likely to decrease, but which no one seems to have picked up on: changing demographics. Bottom line, OECD countries are filling up with old people, who don't consume nearly as much energy as us whipper-snappers.
To those of you saying demand has peaked, I'll remind you that hundreds of millions of people in the 3rd world would love nothing better than owning a car
Hi bernie, welcome to POD. You're bringing up the Jevons argument we've rehashed numerous times here in the past. The two basic conclusions I've come to are these:
1) Jevons Paradox only applies on the upslope of the Hubbert curve. On the downslope, demand will decrease in lockstep with supply. The scenario where demand increases and supply decreases is impossible, no matter how bad Juan wants that car. 3rd worlders in the future may indeed be driving vehicles in large numbers, but if so, they won't be powered with oil.
2) Oil demand has indeed peaked and is currently declining in a number of countries/regions, such as the OECD (which peaked in 2005). In Japan, where I live, oil demand peaked in 1996 at around 5.8mbd, and as of Jan. 2009, that had fallen to 4.7mbd. Part of this is due to the fact that the younger generation is losing interest in cars. So peak demand is a real world phenomenon.
More importantly, who cares whether Wong, Jaspreet and Juan buy cars? You're essentially saying: "If you don't use the heroin, somebody else will." Why is the fact that someone else will use the drug a problem for me if I quit heroin? The fact that Wong, Jaspreet and Juan are making themselves dependent on a substance which will run out in the near future is their problem, not mine. It doesn't having any bearing on whether I should quit that substance.
JD -
"The fact that Wong, Jaspreet and Juan are making themselves dependent on a substance which will run out in the near future is their problem, not mine. It doesn't having any bearing on whether I should quit that substance."
I love it when you demonstrate what a completely uninformed, racist, closed minded, ass you are.
Keep up the hate and bullshit, it lowers your blog down another notch every time you post.
I love how if you express fear of the same groups using oil, then it's okay, but if you say it doesn't matter, then it's racist.
Makes perfect sense.
Over and over again, we see that doomers do not understand the price mechanism. They say "demand will be 95 mbd, and there won't be enough oil, so we all drop dead."
That is not what happens. Price rations supply to demand.
My guess is that at any sustained price above $60-$80 a barrel, you see demand for crude oil flatten, and slowly go down. The higher the price, the more rapid the process, although it takes years, not months.
Globally, people buy higher mpg cars, and power plants fuel switch etc.
If oil is sustained above $100 a barrel, I think you see PHEVs commercialized--and then a secular decline in the demand for oil, stretching out over generations.
It may well be that the oil thug-baboon states are effectively consigning themsleves to backwater status. Another price spike or two, and the developed world will move on to other more-reliable forms of transportation and energy. PHEVs and nukes come to mind.
Who wants to rely on Iraq, Libya, Venezuela and Russia? Bad idea.
"I love it when you demonstrate what a completely uninformed, racist, closed minded, ass you are.
Keep up the hate and bullshit, it lowers your blog down another notch every time you post."
Duh. An American racist who lives in Japan. Good one. Idiot.
DB
Jan Lundberg:
Apparently the world has reached limits to growth.
I think not.
Are there only useful concentrations of minerals in the top 1000 feet of the Earth's Surface?
Do other forms of energy not work?
Well I guess since the answers to these questions are both a resounding NO then we haven't reached the limits to growth yet.
We *may* be reaching a stage where the biosphere is taking the hit but the jury is still out on whether we can create an ENGINEERED food supply.
Ants do it.
Are we smarter than ants?
I think that given a stable energy source, it's likely that we CAN do it.
DB
I love it when you demonstrate what a completely uninformed, racist, closed minded, ass you are.
Keep up the hate and bullshit, it lowers your blog down another notch every time you post.
Don't you just love it when a complete moron arrives here and makes a pun out of himself?!?
These people don't even understand what the words even mean!
Ari,
"I love how if you express fear of the same groups using oil, then it's okay, but if you say it doesn't matter, then it's racist.
Makes perfect sense."
Either one is racist. For smart people you POdders are awfully dense.
PODnaught
Barbara,
"These people don't even understand what the words even mean!"
This from the brilliant bulb that thinks we will 'unexpensively and seamlessly transition to an alternative energy source when the oil runs out ...'
Aside from the absurdity of the concept have you tried locating a dictionary entry for 'unexpensively.'
PODnaught
Wow, doomers must be desperate for an angle of attack if they consider mere mention of the names Wong, Jaspreet and Juan to be racist.
:-\
"Gustav drives a car. So does Dimitri." There, I'm a racist!
:-\
Should have ordered the double decker Sprinter Van Hearse. How else are we going to fit Tom Boone Pickens AND old Ken it that old school buggie?
Plus, the Sprinter Van can be aftermarket'ed to run biodiesel.
Anon- R.Dobb
Ugh, can we ban PODnaught? He's obviously a troll/PO disciple.
Speaking of blown calls, rich elitist socialite Matt Simmons called $500 a barrel back in September 2008 and also claimed that there were "no evidences of glut" back in December 2008. Six months later and his predictions can be no further from the truth. The PO/doomer prophets are really on a roll here with failing predictions.
"Aside from the absurdity of the concept have you tried locating a dictionary entry for 'unexpensively.'"
Hey dumbass. The "i" and "u" keys are right next to each other. It's called a typo.
DoctorJJ
T. Boone Pickens, Ken Deffeyes, and Matt Simmons are all "cheerleaders" for the oil industry.
In the stockmarket industry they also call people like that "rabbits".
They attempt to "set the pace".
Pickens, Simmons, and Deffeyes don't care if they're right or wrong, that's not their job.
Remember, cheerleaders keep cheering no matter how lopsided the score.
"Can't you make your case without this kind of hatred?"
Actually no, he can't.
Fredrica
Hey, PODmoron, my name isn't "Barbara", and I've never said such a thing you claimed. Stop trolling and GTFOOH.
You know, much as I dislike the groupthink and the idea of throwing other people out based on their opinions I have to say part of my is laughing to the tune of "what goes around comes around".
All the times I've seen people on latoc or theoildrum pointing out what could be done and is being done being shouted down with cries of "it won't work because our dieoff religion says it won't. Out with the heretic" and then seeing people stop posting (banned perhaps). I can't help but feel a little smug and like the fact that there's a corner of the internet where we both accept the idea of peak oil and are looking for ways to resolve it rather than just saying "we're all DOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!"
Great work people and thanks JD
DB
Ari,
Who’s the retarded prophet now (words borrowed from friends in your circle)…”You also have players like the United States that have been "in decline for decades" who could probably experience a second peak given the right circumstances.” Good luck with that one, this just shows me how filled with wishful thinking you are…. This prediction is wilder than any extremist stab at a PO date.
God you guys are simple…bringing a complete liquids production graph as evidence against someone else’s oil prediction.. Let’s compare an orange to the apple, hope the majority of the simpletons on this post don’t notice it, and call it a day!!
As always you’re to simple to figure out that the wolf will show up and you’ll be left holding your demand side destruction mantra out as your sword.
If I had to place my faith in people, it will be in people that have been in the industry all their lives, not in some snot-nosed young kid just graduated from university assuming he knows how the complete world works. In case you have not figured it out by now, you do not know it all at your age; wisdom will come with time young padewan.
UK Realist,
Who’s the retarded prophet now (words borrowed from friends in your circle)…”You also have players like the United States that have been "in decline for decades" who could probably experience a second peak given the right circumstances.” Good luck with that one, this just shows me how filled with wishful thinking you are…. This prediction is wilder than any extremist stab at a PO date.
Yes, it's clearly wishful thinking to assume that given more open policies toward oil production in areas like California off-shore, ANWR (I'm not saying I want to drill there, but I'm saying that it's a potential policy), and deep sea exploration like Shell is doing right now, the US could possibly experience a second peak.
I'm not saying it will have a peak at the level of before, but that under increased exploration and more realistic legislation that aggregate production will rise and fall again. A peak. You know, like a situation where something goes up and then down?
Hey, look at that: the EIA shows production increasing in the lower 48. Now, what's stopping this from happening elsewhere in the US, given offshore moratoriums being lifted? Wow, my prediction is so wild. SO WILD.
CO2 injection alone could bring significant returns to much of the onshore production in the US, and it's happening already.
God you guys are simple…bringing a complete liquids production graph as evidence against someone else’s oil prediction.. Let’s compare an orange to the apple, hope the majority of the simpletons on this post don’t notice it, and call it a day!!
Because we all know that the only thing that matters is regular crude. The rest isn't energy! It's just... well... it's something.
So, really, how is it oranges to apples when the issue is aggregate liquid energy supply? Isn't that really what's at stake?
As always you’re to simple to figure out that the wolf will show up and you’ll be left holding your demand side destruction mantra out as your sword.
Because demand doesn't matter. No siree. I mean, look at what's happened to the horse shoeing market! Peak horse shoe destroyed the fabric of the world as we know it.
If I had to place my faith in people, it will be in people that have been in the industry all their lives, not in some snot-nosed young kid just graduated from university assuming he knows how the complete world works. In case you have not figured it out by now, you do not know it all at your age; wisdom will come with time young padewan.
Right, because there's nobody who's been in the industry their whole lives who disagrees vehemently with Campbell and Deffeyes. Nobody. Nobody at all.
It's funny that you accuse me of acting like "I know it all at my age" when you seem to be the one who ignores the other side of the argument. And the evidence.
Dear Pot,
I have a friend for you. His name is Kettle. He's a jolly good fellow.
Your friend
P.S.
Why did you address this to me, Pot? I didn't write this post, good sir.
Podnaught,
You have a funny definition of racism. You see, I have a strange belief that we should actually use words the way that they're meant to be used. It's for a reason called "clarity of thought." Now, I have a book here on this computer called a "dictionary." In this dictionary are things called "definitions." Let's see what it has to say about "racism:"
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
• prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief : a program to combat racism
Interesting! Nothing about thinking that it's someone else's responsibility to deal with their own problems. JD didn't say that he believes that Wong, Jaspreet and Juan should be discriminated against. He also didn't really show any prejudice for them. In fact, he said: 3rd worlders in the future may indeed be driving vehicles in large numbers, but if so, they won't be powered with oil. That doesn't sound like JD doesn't want them driving cars...
He then asks why we should care that they drive cars. That doesn't sound like a call for discriminating against them... especially not based on race! He's simply saying, "let them do what they want, but it's their problem to deal with the consequences."
That's racism? I thought that was responsibility.
You really have nothing else?
Hilarious ! Great job JD. I wonder if Deffeyes will ever clue in. Most likely he won't since he'll still try to make whatever money he can off people who have bought into his extremist rhetoric.
- EF
I for one am dang tired of this back-bitery, so I throwed a Hebart curve over the entire shebang with double match points and The LogaRthyms too. Every thing I checked to ensure the validation of my viewpoint. Still I was worried about my prior proklamashuns, so I throwed a Hurlbert graph over the stewpot and it still sez.....
I should go piss mercury in the Hillsborough River. I did. I feel better now.
Hi JD,
Perhaps others mentioned this but, you anchor your post on Crude Oil,and the Deffayes call on Crude oil. You even cite those figures for Crude Oil. But then you use a chart for All Liquids. Why did you do that? Since a chart of Crude Oil production would have been just as easy to obtain, perhaps you could explain.
While I don't expect to get a straight answer, I would also point that your assertion that the use of the Crude Oil category is "stacking the deck" would only be true if, as you have done in this post, Deffeyes was switching between the two.
Thanks
gregor,
My point is that Deffeyes is cherry-picking. NGL and tar sands are just as much oil as C&C. Deffeyes focused on C&C because it had the best chance of making his peak prediction come true. A peak in C&C doesn't have much practical significance if liquids continue to rise.
JD--
The definition of cherry picking is to switch back and forth, using differing metrics or figures to defend one's point. Ken is not cherry picking.
If one disagrees, more generally, that NGL should always be included in any analysis of global oil supply, then that is certainly defensible though equally arguable.
Ken is not cherry-picking. You are cherry picking, in that particular post.
Show your readers that Ken is switching among the categories, and your post will be better. Also, you might mount your own argument was to why NGL's should not be broken out or away from the tracking of crude oil supply.
Best,
G
Ken Deffeyes is at least only making direct arguments about conventional crude, many of which make sense given the data he's looked at. He's not ideologically a doomer and I frequently cite his work on uranium distribution.
gregor,
The definition of cherry picking is to select the value which proves your point when there are a range of values to choose from. Ken Deffeyes is definitely cherry picking. Pointing to a peak of 74.2mbd as global "peak oil" is clearly ridiculous when the world is producing 14mbd more than that at peak capacity. Deffeyes is simply lowering the height of the basket to make it easier for him to dunk.
He's not ideologically a doomer
What are you talking about? He's made a number of hard-core doomer statements, such as:
"The least-bad scenario is a hard landing, global recession worse than the 1930s," says Kenneth Deffeyes, a Princeton University professor emeritus of geosciences. "The worst-case borrows from the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: war, famine, pestilence and death."Link
And,
By 2025, we're going to be back in the Stone Age.Link
I'm not sure how he can intellectually reconcile that with his projections for uranium supply, unless he thinks nuclear power just cant work for powering civilization. Because his projections on uranium supply is that its for all purposes limitless.
Dezakin,
Deffeyes is, for all intents and purposes, Hubbert with some good-old-fashioned Christian doomsdayism thrown in. So while he believes most of what Hubbert believed (oil to uranium was the next stage in energy), he adds in a bit of the old Rapture bit. Kind of interesting, but not really "scientific."
JD-
The Crude Oil only category or the C+C category is not arcane. It does not fulfill the definition of cherry picking to use what is a standard category that has been used for decades. The Crude oil category is a standard category used by EIA in Washington.
Pointing to a peak of 74.2mbd as global "peak oil" is clearly ridiculous when the world is producing 14mbd more than that at peak capacity.
14 Mb/day of what? Not oil, correct? Surely you understand that the growth in biofuels and NGLs is not oil.
Perhaps you would do a post asserting that NGL's and biofuels must always be included in the multi-decade record of oil production, and explain why the EIA in Washington is also cherry-picking to use the Crude oil category, and perhaps should only use the All Liquids caetgory.
FWIW: I see that the latest Oil Drum call on Peak oil has been picked up today by the FT in London. I would note that the central graphic chart uses all the categories: Oil (C+C), Oil + Tar Sands, and then Oil + Tar Sands + NGLs. What do you think of that method, of including all, but showing each category?
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2009/03/18/53723/have-we-already-seen-peak-oil/
G
Dr. Clifford Wirth took down a civil comment of mine at his website, a comment very similar to my comment, here, laying out the case for ultra-deep water, ultra-deep drilling (in situ observation & measurement). Wirth is a professional "Peak" oil advocate that lives in warm Mexico and travels around to "Peak" oil conferences.
Wirth had no answer and didn't want anyone interfering with his cozy little gig.
But the point is made, when confronted with the evidence Wirth had no answer, he's just another empty suit, making a living off the "Peak" oil racket.
"Peak" oil?
It all in our heads.
If oil becomes hard to come by, you'll be forced to buy & eat locally, period.
Those long trips to get fancy hot dogs either by driving a Volvo or a semitruck won't simply happen. And it's not a matter of discussion, it just happens. Many people in the 3rd world have potable water for just a few hours per day. The rest of the time they don't. They simply don't. So they don't even talk, blog or even debunk the untenable statement that when a resource is depleted is not depleted.
Peak Oil or peak "anything" for that matter is very real. Sure there's lots of oil/NG out there under the sea or at Antarctica, but at what price? Peak oil is about being able to increase output to keep up with demand. You naysayers, and especially you, JD, are just the types that never see what hits you in the face. We're at peak oil right about now, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Hiding your heads in the sand won't "make it all better".
Post a Comment
<< Home