Enjoy your time away...read some good books...watch the sun go up and down.

Rick

Robert,

Sad to see you off on what I hope is only a TOD sabbatical. FWIW I thought your article on HL was excellent (indeed I was one the few who "Dugg" it) and I was disappointed by some of the responses from people who I would have expected more of, based on their contributions to date on TOD. They know who they are.

I hope we will see you back soon, and certainly no later than the end of summer, by which time I expect answers to have been given regarding Saudi production. For what it's worth, I expect them to ramp up to 9.5 million or so in response to a demand-driven price spike. It will be interesting to see how long they can go at that rate if the price does not drop again. We shall see.

Enjoy your much-deserved break.

Re: That is why I liken some of these positions to religious faith. If you have staked out a position in which you have on blinders, allowing entrance only to evidence that supports your position, you have the makings of a faith-based position. There are many here who fall into that category, and those are the ones who respond with the most vitriol

I think of it as a selection bias which, in turn, supports a faith-based position. When you argue with people about their religion, then you are likely to get called names — or worse. For example, people have been known to nail others up on a cross, if they've got one handy.  

Just my excuse, then. Sorry I was out of line there, I should have thought before writing. I'll think it over, and if I have something clever to add, I'll post that. Next time I'll keep the wordings more courteous! Have a nice weekend!

Robert:
Just want to extend a note of appreciation for your posts, both the HL post and the prior work on ethanol. Your contributions will be missed.


Best Regards

As a frequent reader and infrequent contributor, I think it's very sad that one of the most distinguished contributors should be subjected to such abuse. Constructive criticism is always valuable but what Robert has quoted above does not fit that definition in any way. I do not blame him for reacting as he has - I would probably do the same myself.

There are many here who fall into that category, and those are the ones who respond with the most vitriol.

I think that's why you see so many negative comments. Because those people are the ones most likely to respond. I agreed with what you wrote but didn't respond because I didn't really have anything to add.

One thing your posts did do is to get me to take a closer look at HL. I had never really paid much attention to it before since I'm really not concerned with predicting a date for the peak. I don't think I'll be convinced of the date for the peak until after the fact. Then I'll be able to look back and say, yes there was the peak. But there's just too much uncertainty before the actual peak to be able to predict it. That's not to say that some people won't make good educated guesses.

I've taken a brief look at the HL graph and I don't see how anyone can think it can predict URR. The point where the line intersects the x axis increases with each new data point. It's an interesting graph to look at and think about, but it really isn't very useful.

Robert Rapier,

I am new to TOD and want to thank you for your hard work that has led to a fabulous discussion in the last few weeks about peak oil. Your "bravery" has brought other experts into the fold lately, what a great education for the layperson like myself. I now realize peak oil is certain, we can look upon this as the end or a great new opportunity, I choose the latter.

Robert,

While you are pondering the amount of energy you can devote to TOD, please keep in mind that there are a lot of us who read the debates, and the posted comments are not always a fair representation of the "community". If the critical mass of TOD veers away from data and analysis and is driven by something more evangelical, then its usefulness would be greatly diminished.

The HL thread was obviously an emotional marathon. I hope that the experience, as unpleasant as it was, will not drive you away permanently. Your articles and commentary have always been spot on, grounded in evidence, and are the strength of this site.

I guess Robert and I can now argue over who first decided to take a sabbatical from TOD. I was trying to at least take a sabbatical, when the HL discussion popped up again. Following is what I just posted over on the HL discussion:

The Role of Oil Companies in Post-Peak Regions

For the purposes of this discussion, crude oil = crude + condensate.

The Lower 48 and the North Sea started showing a strong linear pattern on their crude oil HL plots in 1954 and 1988, respectively. The Lower 48 peaked in 1970, the North Sea, in 1999.

The HL data from 1954 to 1970 and from 1988 to 1999 are consistent with the respective post-peak HL data for the Lower 48 and North Sea.

The Lower 48 crossed the 50% of Qt mark in 1970, the North Sea, in 1999. The post-1970 cumulative Lower 48 crude oil production through 2004 was 99% of what the HL model predicted it would be--using production data from 1954 to 1970 to generate the HL model.

Interestingly enough, according to Matt Simmons, the major oil companies working the North Sea in 1999 were predicting that the North Sea peak was at least a decade away. Sound familiar?

There were no material restrictions on drilling in either region (minor, but not material restrictions in the case of the Lower 48), and both regions were developed by private companies.

Despite the best efforts of private companies using the best available technology, the Lower 48 and the North Sea have both shown long term declines since peaking. Empirically, the role of oil companies in these two post-peak regions has been to slow the rate of decline of conventional crude oil production.

In my opinion, major oil companies are deeply threatened by mathematical models like the HL method, as applied to world crude oil production, because it suggests that they probably can’t replace conventional crude oil reserves, and they are (justifiably) deeply concerned about punitive taxation. I thought it was interesting that Matt Simmons said that he did not own any major oil company stocks, because they probably could not replace their conventional crude oil reserves (he is focusing on service companies and smaller oil companies).

The world started showing a strong linear pattern in 1983, and on Deffeyes' crude oil HL plot, the world crossed the 50% of Qt mark in 2005. Deffeyes predicted that the most likely year for a world crude oil decline was 2006, within a predicted peak range of 2004 to 2008. As Deffeyes predicted, world crude oil production declined in 2006, relative to 2005 (EIA).

So, the Lower 48, the North Sea and the world all started showing lower crude oil production after crossing their respective 50% of Qt marks.

Empirically, in the absence of constraints on production, e.g., Texas and Saudi Arabia, regions tend to peak in the vicinity of 50% of Qt.

I can’t get inside Robert’s head, so I will assume that he is simply trying understand the HL method, rather than attacking the HL method because of the unpleasant implications it has for major oil companies.

But I do have a couple of questions for Robert.

(1) Why do you continue to treat the Lower 48 and world HL plots as if they are radioactive--while going into extreme detail on the Texas HL plot?

(2) Why do you think that world conventional crude oil production will increase past the 50% of Qt mark, when the Lower 48 and North Sea did not? (Even as world crude oil production is declining).

Robert,

I remind you that you post here and ask people to accept your work on a "faith based premise". You ask people to "understand" that you have a deal with the oil company you work for to be able to post here. You say you can't comment on certain things and for people to understand that. In other words Robert you ask people to "trust" you blindly that you are here for the right reasons.

You ask them to give you the benefit of the doubt blindly really. No one except you know why you post here. What tether is on you from your employer. If they have asked you to modify what you say and not let the readers know that the opinion is not truly and fully yours, but altered to perhaps "spin".

You even chided posters yourself in several posts yesterday for "faith based" answers, yet all the while you post here and wish people to accept that on faith that you are here to do the right thing.

So perhaps you should have a little tag on the end of your posts explaining that you expect everyone else to only post with solid and correct verifiable data, but that you must except yours ROBERT RAPPIERS data and positions of a FAITH BASED assumption that he is telling the truth.

because you did post these words yesterday didn't you Robert.

paraphrased: I can make 2+2=5 if I want to also.

I am sure you can Robert, for a while, so if you make such a statement why should we believe that you haven't found a way to fudge the numbers and data in your post yesterday. When asked for certain data by Memmel you responded with a blow him off response.

With your time off Robert why don't you examine Mary's paper. I am sure she would love for you to tell her why she is incorrectly interpreting the statistical data. You have nothing to do now since your not posting here. I might even send Mary your post that said she was intentionally manipulating the data to fit the outcome. Pretty strong words Robert, and in the scientific community that is a real no no. Are you saying Mary is a charlatan with the credentials she has to back up her abilities. You must be pretty smart to take her on. Whoops, wait, you just made a statement, but didn't back it up. Now is your chance Robert. You can become a media hero. Take down here paper and Hoaglands, that would really solidify your skills.

You will not do it though will you Robert. As Mary asks, why why why, is this showing up in the data.

I show you where the most intensive space program in the US seems to have a religious faith aspect, or another reason, and you're not interested. Now why is that Robert, and now you leave too.

Well, lets say, religious faith is not the real purpose, its something else.

Say on your time off why not go visit the little chapel outside Aberdeen, you know the one. See whats there etc. Perhaps see if there is a correlation between 19.5 33 etc. Why if there is, it must be a coincidence that keeps happening over and over and over again.

Remember Robert your the one that claims.

Hi, I'm Robert Rapier I work for an oil company that lets me post here. I can't talk about certain things, and please accept on faith that I am here to help. Thats all I can say.

Quid Clarius Astris
Ubi Bene ibi patria

Robert,

I will study the contents of your HL critical posts when I find an appropriate moment. I'm sure you raise valid arguments, as I think westexas does. Respect to both "camps" in keeping all this sound and civilized. I am merely just observing this all and refrain from commenting in a cloud of uncertainty.

A break from the discussion (or from the PO problem in general for that matter), for a while, is adviseble to all of us addicts/obsessed.

Meanwhile we can all agree light sweet crude has peaked, after which EROEI is declining, so give it a rest, till the garden, plant a tree, get your fishing gear ready, order your seeds and tools.....

While I never commented yesterday, I did read what you wrote, and I found your arguments to be compelling.

Sorry to hear that all of the vitriol is getting to you though.

Good for you Robert. I think both you and Jeffrey need some down time. Perhaps you should both sink some suds or something. TOD has ground out a lot of interesting info in the last month or so.

I think it is a time for rumination and observation. Lets see how global events play out this spring and then reassess the situation.

Sounds like you can use the break anyway, but sorry to see you go. I am sure many more of us read and considered your posts silently without responding than the number who bashed you. but can't really take a vote.

I think you make very good points even if I don't always agree with the conclusions. I do think you put up a challenge to HL that hasn't been answered. I am intrigued by Memmel's responses, but unfortunately he just went more personal which undermined the argument. If he had just presented a clear case showing you to be wrong it would have been much more persuasive.

I am more comfortable with bottoms-up analysis anyway and the knowledge that we are ignorant of some of the most critical facts anyway. And that it all leads to the same conclusion that we ought to be dealing with this peak problem now.

Have a good break.

Robert. You da man and always have been. I guess it won't help to tell you not to worry about gratuitous insults by assholes since they are just making themselves look bad, not you. Maybe you don't want flattery, but here it is, anyway.

Robert,

I greatly appreciate your efforts (and others here) to make this site so informative. I was sure that yesterday's HL discussion would become catabolic and would be followed by a period of quietude. Although I agree with your arguments, I do admit to being an intellectual fluff-ball.

But there is one way to settle the HL debate.

Bring M King Hubbert back from the dead and let him rule on the validity of the HL. With all the advances in medicine and all the money currently spent on healthcare in the US, I don't think that this is totally unreasonable. Sure Mr Hubbert might just turn out to be another brain-eating zombie but maybe not...

I sure hope he wasn't cremated!

Really sorry to hear that, Robert. Count me as another who appreciates the work you put into the post. I was waiting for some reasoned responses as well, but most of the "debate" was exactly as you described, sadly. Hope your break is short.

To be specific, you did bite first in your essay, with your personalized attack on anyone who disagreed with you via the Titanic analogy. Given how you started that entire discussion, you should have expected personalized responses even if your analogy was right. Oftentimes it is better to leave certain things unsaid. You don't change minds by initially attacking someone's position, but you can change minds by showing them an alternative analysis that makes more sense.

Further, the rest of your HL analysis essay stands just fine on its own merits. It did not need the gratuitous insults with which it started. So please stop the "pity poor Robert" party nonsense. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Or don't be the first to throw rocks, when you live in a glass house.

Ghawar Is Dying
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Dr. Albert Bartlett

I have to say, I'm a little surprised that questioning HL would turn out to be such a minefield. I agree, it seems to have turned into a religious argument. It's too bad you were on the receiving end of so much abuse for just asking important questions.

I would urge you to be less accommodating. You really don't need to respond to even a quarter of the challenges you receive. Stuart seems to have worked out a helpful method. He writes an essay, then ignores 90% of the responses, replying only to a select few that raise a particularly interesting point. Let those of us who agree with your point do some of the responding for you, or just let useless posts wither on their own. Your time is more valuable than that.

You need to get a THICKER Skin.

Both of you.

You and West texas

RR: you now live in Scotland.

Find your local pub

Go there

Two sessions should get you a nicely thickened Rhino Hide.

Speaking as a Sassenach blow-in: These Celts take no prisoners. After 2 sessions in a Scottish pub, you will happily take the slings and arrows of this blog-site in your stride...

Just make sure you avoid the Scot that all the other Scots are afraid of...

BTW: Errr.... But...ultimately... we are all on the same side...right?

RR
I have appreciated all along when you have let us know you would be away from TOD; as I do from any contributor/regular. Best during your time away.

Why I'm not optimistic about the outcome of peak oil....

Let's see, TOD participants are generally those that are very concerned/interested in peak oil. We have a diarist who works for a major oil company and HE ACTUALLY BELIEVES IN PEAK OIL!!!! He tells us all to prepare now, regardless of when the actual date of peak is. And what happens? WE EAT OUR OWN BECAUSE HE DOESN'T AGREE WITH THE HL MODEL! How embarrassing. How telling...

For you optimists: If those believing in the peak oil are willing to eat their own BEFORE the crisis hits, what do you think will happen to the general population WHEN the first real biggie hits??? This is exactly why I am not optimistic. What we saw yesterday was a microcosm of our society, and it isn't a pretty picture.

It's actually amazing that we have someone from a major oil company that admits to peak oil and warns folks to prepare. It's a shame so many people keep missing that somehow. And for those who think he should just jump into the fray and go public now, I dare say you are naive about how the world works. First, he is probably risking his career just by the things he posts on TOD, and he does have a family to support. Second, if and when he goes public, he had better have all of his ducks in a row as he will likely be going AGAINST his company. He will likely get fired and the big gun PR will come out against him. He had better be able to lay down a case that is as iron-clad as possible. The position he is in is much different than the rest of us.

Even though Robert and Jeff may occasionally get testy with each other, that is common in professional circles. They both have a huge amount invested in this. But when we all start participating in eating our own "peak oilers" over disagreements as to the effectiveness of a model, well gee folks, we have a problem.

I have learned a lot from both Robert and Jeff and am grateful to them both. They have both instilled in me the confidence that my ELP efforts are the right thing to do. Thanks to both of you for the education and all of the effort you put into TOD!

Robert "Rapier": In Robert's case, it appears to be double-edged.

you were vindictive. you used your post(as in position) to criticize another respected member of the blog. westexas doesn't have the same status as you and can't post /his/ side of the debate on the main page. especially when said articles get kept on the top or near the top above drum-beats.
also these article do not get shared with other place's with the comments intact further removing his ability to do a reasonable debate.
i admit my post on your thread was trollish, though i /thought/ to get such a title here of 'contributor' you should not do this. guess i was wrong.

Hi Robert,

I appreciate your presence, your willingness to talk, and the time you have given to us - as well as to the many who read and do not post (and I know they exist).

As an example of how much your work, Jeffrey's work (and that of others) means, I had a long talk last night w. someone who I consider to be extremely knowledgeable (w. an engineering/science background). Our conversation had a reference point in several recent articles, and my guess is perhaps some new insights and future contributions may result from the conversations here. For me, this is the best of TOD.

It sounds like your need for respect, acknowledgment and friendliness wasn't met.

I'd like to support your meeting these needs (we all have), in any specific way possible.

The only thing I know is to try to "translate" words/posts such as in your list above, using some of the ideas mentioned at www.cnvc.org, www.newconversations.net - (for the reference). This is just to say, this can take more time and effort than people usually give in the "hurried world" of the online forum. (And I've been hesitant to just "jump in.")

I hope you'll "visit" during your time away, comment whenever you can and/or want to...and come back very soon...

The bottom feeders on this site, who have some how temporarily escaped from their normal lives at the bottom of the gene pool, through self righteous and slanderous abuse, have managed to lose us one of our brilliant contributors.

Robert Rapier's contributions were intelligent, professionally presented and added enormously to the debate and our knowledge. And now he has gone.

To those of you who abused him yesterday: You are a bunch of idiots and do not deserve him or the excellence you find on TOD. As you have amply demonstrated, you do not understand it anyway, so why bother?