PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

DNV-Peak oil within 3 years.
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ReserveGrowthRulz



Joined: 19 May 2019
Posts: 736
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Sun Nov 17, 2019 2:50 am    Post subject: DNV-Peak oil within 3 years. Reply with quote

Pesky peak oilers now calling for the next one within 3 years!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 11883
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Sun Nov 17, 2019 9:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

But this time they are calling for a demand peak while last time, as far as I recall, it was a supply peak that you argued against, RGR.
_________________
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
ReserveGrowthRulz



Joined: 19 May 2019
Posts: 736
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Sun Nov 17, 2019 9:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kenneal - lagger wrote:
But this time they are calling for a demand peak while last time, as far as I recall, it was a supply peak that you argued against, RGR.


I have never argued against a peak, as defined by Hubbert. Matter of fact, I have stated publicly that it is axiomatic, and silly to argue against, as you simply can't grow a finite resource infinitely. That is just the math. My main objection was always with the hysterical consequences claimed by Happy McPeaksters, and the unabashed scientific, engineering, geologic and economic ignorance of its main proponents.

So a decline at some point in time has always been required, just as Hubbert laid out. Peakers had always presumed it was because of scarcity, being impervious to any mention of how demand has a say in the matter.

Back in 2015, during a discussion with Amy Jaffe at my office, she was quite convincing in her argument that the required decline would be demand driven, not supply driven.

I was more of a price mitigating supply growth kind of guy, with conservation and substitution happening only with those higher prices, and in combination with more expensive resources, allowing a gradual plateau and decline under that higher price scenario.

I'm not convinced peak demand will be quite as clean as some appear to be implying, but I will also admit that the environmental turn, the handiness of my EV and how it has driven me personally away from ICE power, was far more powerful than I expected.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vtsnowedin



Joined: 07 Jan 2011
Posts: 6189
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 2:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In free markets supply and demand are always in close tandem. A change in one effects the price and the other soon comes to balance. To argue over if we will have a supply peak or a demand peak is splitting blond hairs with a dull axe.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ReserveGrowthRulz



Joined: 19 May 2019
Posts: 736
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 2:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

vtsnowedin wrote:
In free markets supply and demand are always in close tandem. A change in one effects the price and the other soon comes to balance. To argue over if we will have a supply peak or a demand peak is splitting blond hairs with a dull axe.


VT, I'm not sure how long you've been in this game, I know it is a reasonable amount of time.

Can you name anyone within the peak oil community, stretching back to when the modern era began (Colin Campbell's 1990 global peak claim or Robert Hirsch's early 1990's global oil crisis claim) through the time when Happy McPeaksters began to run for cover ( LATOC implosion (2010) or TOD implosion (2013) who said that peak would happen because demand waned, rather than supply became scarce?

Amy Jaffe circa 2015 is my first reference on someone lobbing the idea out there, to be met with some mild derision on the forums and boards and whatnot.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 11883
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 4:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

vtsnowedin wrote:
In free markets supply and demand are always in close tandem. ..............


I'm not sure where you get the idea that oil and gas is a "free" market, VT? It is probably one of the most manipulated markets in the "Free" World. If it hasn't been the Saudis manipulating the price/supply it has been the UK in the Thatcher/North Sea era and more recently Russia or the US for financial, pure political power or market power reasons. A "free" market it has not been for decades.
_________________
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
vtsnowedin



Joined: 07 Jan 2011
Posts: 6189
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 4:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As you can see I've been here for nine years which is a good approximation of how long I have been interested in peak oil and related subjects. I have not been keeping score of who said what first or best so can't say who I first heard the phrase "Peak demand" from. My views of supply vs. demand economics date back to college econ 101 and 102 back in 1974 so supersede the current debate.
The point is the peak supply vs. Peak demand is a distinction without a difference. If supply tightens due to depletion prices will rise sufficiently to depress demand equal to the remaining supply. Or if demand drops due to substitutes becoming available the price will drop sufficiently it keep demand equal to the supply. Either way we will pump out every barrel of oil and burn it before switching fully to substitutes once and for all.
Now will substitutes prove to be adequate to run our world economy at current or progressive levels? That is the much more pressing problem and the full answer remains to be seen. Of course the longer we can wring out the remaining oil fields with improved technology the longer we will have to develop and perfect the technologies of the substitutes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vtsnowedin



Joined: 07 Jan 2011
Posts: 6189
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 4:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ken While governments such as KSA and organizations like OPEC have tried to manipulate prices and European governments have depressed demand with high fuel taxes the underlying oil market remains free in that it responds to demand and supply changes. OPECs members constantly cheat on quotas and budgetary requirements limit the power of suppliers to set prices with other suppliers always willing to step in and undercut the competition.
So yes people try to manipulate the market but they are never successful at it for long.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ReserveGrowthRulz



Joined: 19 May 2019
Posts: 736
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kenneal - lagger wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote:
In free markets supply and demand are always in close tandem. ..............


I'm not sure where you get the idea that oil and gas is a "free" market, VT? It is probably one of the most manipulated markets in the "Free" World. If it hasn't been the Saudis manipulating the price/supply it has been the UK in the Thatcher/North Sea era and more recently Russia or the US for financial, pure political power or market power reasons. A "free" market it has not been for decades.


Folks attempting to manipulate the price of oil has been happening for a long time, particularly since the formation of OPEC. But the US is no monolith of oil price setting power, we know this because the Saudis tried to put the US down in 2014-2015 because they knew they were losing control, and in the US oil sales have nothing to do with anything other than free market economics. It was horrible for the Saudi's for the marginal barrel to arrive in the US, and continues to be a problem to this day.

And E&Ps in the US don't give a crap about political power, they want to drill wells and make money. So yes, markets are freer than naught, cartels can change that and have, and neither the US nor Russia are one.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ReserveGrowthRulz



Joined: 19 May 2019
Posts: 736
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

vtsnowedin wrote:

The point is the peak supply vs. Peak demand is a distinction without a difference.


You are exactly correct. And if you had pushed the issue a decade or more back around here, or at po.com, you would have likely found yourself on the outside looking in, as I was.

Heresy of such magnitude was not allowed in the congregation on this topic, and some this very day, every time I throw out a peak demand article in the /r/peakoil forum, some whiney little johnny come lately complains, "but that isn't peak oil!!" because they don't know what you and I do.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Catweazle



Joined: 17 Feb 2008
Posts: 2446
Location: Little England, over the hills

PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 10:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We were talking about peak demand since at least 2008:

Catweazle wrote:
The easily predicted demand slump is the main weapon in the peak-denier armoury.

"There will always be enough oil, but less people will be able to afford it"

Perhaps it should have been called "Peak Standard Of Living" instead.


www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=78978

Sadly, your posts are deleted, but quotes still exist:

SunnyJim wrote:
RGR wrote:
Catweazle wrote:
"Peak oil isn't an oil issue....its an economic one."

With respect RGR, does it matter ?


It does because it determines the arena, and the rules, in which the scenario's play out.

Catweazle wrote:

If we can't afford to get the oil out of the ground it might as well not be there.


Absolutely right. Another way of looking at it is the price for oil will rise until we get it out of the ground for ONLY those who can afford it. Which hopefully will price it out of the "random transport" arena and leave it for what it is good for.... chemical feedstocks.

Catweazle wrote:

Even if the rich could still afford fuel there would be a dramatic effect on the living standards of the majority of people, and that's what I hope to avoid by learning alternative strategies from the forum.


I do not confuse the ability of a majority of people to transport themselves to the mall with their living standards.

My living standards certainly don't change if I bicycle to work. My childrens learning experience at school doesn't change if I make them bicycle there.

My wife will get pissed off dragging groceries up the hill in a bicycle, so perhaps my living standards would be effected after all......I must rethink my concept..... Very Happy


Finally. After all that denial of problem, we have RGR finally falling in line with the powerswitch way of thinking!!!!!


http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=79648
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ReserveGrowthRulz



Joined: 19 May 2019
Posts: 736
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 1:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Catweazle wrote:
We were talking about peak demand since at least 2008:

Catweazle wrote:
The easily predicted demand slump is the main weapon in the peak-denier armoury.

"There will always be enough oil, but less people will be able to afford it"

Perhaps it should have been called "Peak Standard Of Living" instead.


www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=78978

Sadly, your posts are deleted, but quotes still exist:

SunnyJim wrote:
RGR wrote:
Catweazle wrote:
"Peak oil isn't an oil issue....its an economic one."

With respect RGR, does it matter ?


It does because it determines the arena, and the rules, in which the scenario's play out.

Catweazle wrote:

If we can't afford to get the oil out of the ground it might as well not be there.


Absolutely right. Another way of looking at it is the price for oil will rise until we get it out of the ground for ONLY those who can afford it. Which hopefully will price it out of the "random transport" arena and leave it for what it is good for.... chemical feedstocks.

Catweazle wrote:

Even if the rich could still afford fuel there would be a dramatic effect on the living standards of the majority of people, and that's what I hope to avoid by learning alternative strategies from the forum.


I do not confuse the ability of a majority of people to transport themselves to the mall with their living standards.

My living standards certainly don't change if I bicycle to work. My childrens learning experience at school doesn't change if I make them bicycle there.

My wife will get pissed off dragging groceries up the hill in a bicycle, so perhaps my living standards would be effected after all......I must rethink my concept..... Very Happy


Finally. After all that denial of problem, we have RGR finally falling in line with the powerswitch way of thinking!!!!!


http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=79648


Was I good or WHAT! So now, like a demand later, peak demand is being substantiated by think tanks, banks, analysts, all sorts of folks! And I said this stuff before Amy Jaffe even showed up and wrote it for resilience.org?

Are you interested in how I became so oil and gas precognitive, or are you just buttering me up!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Catweazle



Joined: 17 Feb 2008
Posts: 2446
Location: Little England, over the hills

PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 1:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

People here have always listened to your arguments, it wasn't those that got you banned, it was your objectionable manners.

If you remove your goniochromic glasses you will see that peaker forums aren't solely populated by nutters hoping for apocalypse.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ReserveGrowthRulz



Joined: 19 May 2019
Posts: 736
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 3:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Catweazle wrote:
People here have always listened to your arguments, it wasn't those that got you banned, it was your objectionable manners.


Oh, I understand that I can be grating.

Catweazle wrote:

If you remove your goniochromic glasses you will see that peaker forums aren't solely populated by nutters hoping for apocalypse.


....well......ummmm.....ahhhhh......while I agree that this characterization might have been a bit leading edge at the time...a decade on now, there is the observation that when one end of world Apocalypse trigger went down the tubes....the same cast of characters latched onto the next pretty quickly.

This observation begs the question...while the forum was started in the shadow of oil doom...and when that doom went poorly...but another one came along ...allowing all the same prepping and arguments and ideas of doom...well....doesn't it appear that doom is the point all along? Peak oil was like the gateway drug to doom, but the common thread isn't peak oil.

Don't you remember the intro of this forum to the world? It wasn't all climate change, all the time.

This was the powerswitch.uk intro to the world.

Go through the assumptions of the time, compared to now, and then pose the question if the common philosophy is oil..climate change...or just cool doom and conspiracy angles?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Catweazle



Joined: 17 Feb 2008
Posts: 2446
Location: Little England, over the hills

PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 10:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I see your point, and yes, there are people who enjoy the idea of society crashing and burning. Personally, I think there are a lot of people who feel that they have "failed" in life because the tables were stacked against them, and they think collapse will level the field. They'd still be losers after the apocalypse, but there would be nobody able to bail them out.

However, not everyone can be tarred with that brush, because in reality the "doom" ( or at least the possibility of it ) HAS changed.

Back in 2008 we didn't know much about climate change, there was a possibility that we would run out of oil, there was a possibility that oil would become too expensive to fritter away on pointless travel, but not many people were expecting world governments to actively replace oil use with renewable technologies. Climate change, new research on the harm done by pollution from vehicles, improvements in solar tech, awareness of ocean plastics - these are all reducing oil use, and the goal posts have moved.

Now, anyone who is looking to provide a comfortable future for grandchildren needs to consider climate change - the next "doom" if you like.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group