Link does not seem to be working...Simmons is starting to look more and more like the "True Prophet"

Both the links he posted work for me.

Do you have Adobe installed? The first one is a PDF.

Reffering to an individual as a 'prophet' only reinforces the opinion in others that Peak Oil is more of a doomers cult then a scientific debate.

Hoth,
You obviously have me confused with somebody else. The Prophecy I was refering to was Simmons statements on the prospects for Saudi oil. As for "Peak Oil Theory", I find infathomable that someone cannot grasp the concept of a finite resource not having maximum in its extraction rate. Maybe if more than 20% of this country took a calculus course we would be in better shape. The only debate is a socio-econonic one on what the downside of the peak will entail. There is no scientific debate except for when the peak will occur.

Prophets are religious icons. Prophets announce prophecies. Prophets are idolized by overzealous religions fanatics. The doomers who refer to them as 'prophets' and their statements as 'prophecies' or religious fanatics.

And there we go again, someone is implying that I do not believe in Peak Oil. For the 10000000000th time, I'm a firm believer in PO. Any finite resource must reach a maximum exploitation rate and decline until nothing is less. A kindergarten student could probably figure that out. My question is only about the timing of the peak, and debunking ridiculous statements that are only backed up by religious fanaticism.

I have been reading this site since the summer of 2005 and I can tell you that I have not come across a "poster" more obnoxious than you. You seem to take joy in taking the comments of others out of context and misconstruing their meaning. I initially thought that it was your inexperience, but I have come to believe that you have a "true believers" mission of poisoning the pool every chance you get. This is one perfect example (among many). Any sensible person would understand that the term "True Prophet" used above was not used in the religious sense. Nor was the context in which it was used such that it could be construed that way. If you check any standard dictionary, you will see that the term "prophet" is also commonly used to mean "the chief spokesman of a movement or cause." There is nothing fanatical or overzealous in its use in this context. And there is nothing wrong with being a bit hyperbolic in calling Simmons a potential true prophet.

Hothgor.

Since you subscribe to Peak Oil, I would be interested in knowing what sort of time scale you think peak will arrive.

When do you think it will be?

Mudlogger,

I will loosely quote Hothgor:

Peak Oil will happen around 2015

Roger From the Netherlands

Fine

I can go with that.

"Prophet" also means "a person who foretells or predicts what is to come". Since Simmons predicted terminal decline for the Saudi fields some time ago, I'd say that he qualifies as a prophet, "by definition" you might say.
-pop

I can see it from Hothgor's point of view.

If you come to this website as a skeptic, you're going to read pro-peak comments with a hostile attitude.

If I went to the Scientology forums and saw something about Tom Cruise being a "prophet", I'd probably throw up a little in my mouth (at the poster). :)

That being said, I do believe it was more likely you were playing with words than any kind of religious adulation.

End of threadjack

I think that the problem is that many TOD posters have probably irreversably committed themselves via "prophesies of doom" to their friends and family to "kook-head" status if Peak Oil doom doesn't arrive very soon (or if mitigation works reasonably smoothly).

So their posts in TOD are increasingly anxious and anticipatory -- looking for *any* bad news that would confirm their vision. Skeptics arriving at TOD will pick up on this fervor. This defensiveness leaks over into quick attacks of any positive/mitigating news or evidence. The recent correction in the price of oil has probably also increased their apprehension about being thought of as "chicken little".

So if Freddy, Hothgor, or whoever present a semi-rational case that PO won't arrive for 3, 4, or 5 years or whatever -- that only makes them apoplectic at the thought that they will have to continue defending "doom" for that long. Peak MUST arrive soon for them! It's personal!

I think to be fair to most of us, there are people very highly respected and listened to by almost all here who do not believe we are at peak yet - Khebab and Robert Rapier are two outstanding examples. Many others such as myself are a bit on the fence and try to listen to everyone thoughtfully.

No, it isn't what they believe that is offensive, it is their offensive, demeaning (esp Hothgor), antagonistic, disdainful manner. Hothgor in particular doesn't tend to respond thoughtfully to counter argument. Instead he will take words and phrases, twist them and throw the back in a belittling manner, just baiting the other. Sometimes he's kind of ok, but then comes back with the old garbage and detracts not only from the blog but from whatever point he might have been trying to make.

I would further add the names of Chris Skrebowski, Euan Mearns, and Rembrandt Koppelar to those very highly respected and listened to contributors who do not believe we are at peak and contribute directly and indirectly to the discussion when it is conducted thoughfully and with respect.

Its funny now no one that you just listed considers me to be antagonistic, offensive or whatever the new flavor of the month name calling people seem to come up with. I'm vocal? Yes. Opinionated? Undoubtedly. Rude? Hardly! :laughs:

I don't know how you can speak for any of them.
If you don't understand my comments you should review your history on this site and think about it a little. You have been extremely rude on a number of occasions and it certainly hasn't gained you any credibility.

Funny how you CAN speak for them. If they have a problem with me, they can come out and say so.

I have a feeling that we will be waiting here for a LONG while :P

:laughs:

This is an example of misrepresenting the point and twisting the discussion - you just made my point for me. My point was that many here respect the named individuals who do not believe we are at peak yet and that therefore the issue is not whether we respect people with divergent views. Obviously we can respect them when they engage in reasonable debate.

Chris?

peakearl,

I think that if oil was back up to $75+, etc, etc, that folks would be less sensitive to "baiting". The antagonizing works only because folks are being defensive -- especially if that person is particularly smug.

My wider point is that it seems folks in TOD are allowing their anxiety to creep over into hyping things like "Bush Attacking Iran", "Hedge Funds Must Be Manipulating Oil Price", "Oil Inventory Number Are Fake", or whatever -- virtually confirming "kook-head" status. Skeptics arriving at TOD will see this.

Again, I believe this is driven by people here being personally committed by their prophesies of doom -- soon! Yet, the oil business is a slow moving one, and easy to implement mitigation just raises their anxiety by delaying and delaying doom. Egads! if they see another A123 battery improvement or the promise of the new CT drilling technology. "It'll never *ever* work..." they shrilly cry in kneejerk response.

Personally, I believe Peak is "now-ish" but that mitigation will work quite well for at least 5 years. The decline curves show only about 2% per year for the first 5 years after peak, and I think that U.S. drivers could easily cut back 10% without any doom. By that time perhaps GM will be shipping plug-in cars, etc. And a further wave of mitigation will start -- perhaps with a little pain or "micro-doom" mixed in. The prospect of defending "prophesies of doom" for THAT long has got to be daunting.

I think what you are saying is true for some. I am not a heavy doomer myself but am definately concerned. People may be sensitive, but you still get a much better discussion by trying to discuss facts and avoiding the personal.

It's more than some people to me. It's the general "atmosphere" of looking like fools. TOD is like a party that has gone on too long without the featured guest arriving -- "Mr. Doom".

EXACTLY wstephens. I think you hit the nail on the head.

One (of the many) things that puzzle me about posters here who claim we are peaking now is how can you ignore price? Price signals are just as important as all the cobbled-together data on oil fields, production, decline rates, etc. I would actually argue that it's a BETTER predictor because it's so transparent--the production-related data seems to be pretty suspect in many cases.

I don't think anyone's ignoring price.

Deffeyes, in his first book, predicted that price volatility would obscure the peak (if you look at price alone).

Dear Hothgor,

Lets continue our discussion:

I asked you the following:
1) When do you think peak oil will happen?
2) And what do you think decline rates in production and export will be?

You answered:
1) Around 2015
2) Around 2-3%, I look at total liquids, individual declines will be greater obviously.

I asked:
-Decline rates in conventional oil are in modernized oil fields between 8 and 15 %.
-Where will all the compensating extra oil comming from? Oilsands? Bio?

You answered:
Again, you need to look at the bigger picture. An individual field may decline at 8 to 15%. Hell, all the fields may decline at 8 to 15%.
But not all of the fields are exploited at the exact same time.
Because they are not exploited at the same time, the decline of one field is offset by the exploitation of another field(s). In regards to simple oil production in the US, this has resulted in approximately a 4% decline on average. However, we were not producing as much alternative fuels in the past as we are now attempting to do so in the present. In the end, I think the global production decline will come in at roughly 60% the rate that the US experienced, barring of course a catastrophic world war/nuclear exchange.

I asked:
Theoratically you're right ofcourse. But then; you need to have enough new fields to begin with to ofset the decline in existing fieds.
Where do you think the new fields are now, as country after country is declining?
Just tell me; where do you think this new oil will come from? Tell me the fields or the countries that will provide this extra oil??

You answered:
There are too many fields to list, and I doubt even WT could muster up enough tenacity to look them all up if should choose to do so. That being said, the general categories for these new fields are:
Undiscovered fields
Previously discovered economical fields that have not been exploited
Previously discovered uneconomical fields that have not been exploited
Simple reserve growth via improved technology or evaluations of existing fields :increases of the IOIP:
BTW, the Artic is estimated to have approximately 25% of the worlds total undiscovered petroleum resources in its oceans.

Now I ask you the following:

How much new oil will be comming from your stated sources?
a) Undiscovered fields
b) Previously discovered economical fields that have not been exploited
c) Previously discovered uneconomical fields that have not been exploited
d) Simple reserve growth via improved technology or evaluations of existing fields :increases of the IOIP:

Thank you for your answers!

Roger From The Netherlands