 | The Future of (Natural) Gas from the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin? | The Oil Drum | Ten Fundamental Principles of Net Energy |  |
310 comments on DrumBeat: January 26, 2007
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
310 comments on DrumBeat: January 26, 2007
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Carbon Capture and Storage
- Oilwatch Monthly November 2009
- Some predictions on the forthcoming Russian-Ukrainian gas 'crisis'
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
- The Bullroarer - Friday 20th November 2009
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.”
—Gandhi
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
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).