Hi Star,

I wish I could have been there when you and Gail were conversing.

What does "he" imagine would happen to other resources were the 8 trillion to really exist? (and come online at approximately current flow rates, as you so correctly point out - ?)

Have they not heard about water scarcity, collapsing fisheries, lack of arable land, overcrowding, etc.? A rhetorical question, I realize.

Well, I was quite stunned by this statement. Earlier we had seen similar numbers in a different presentation that would have no problem and continuing growth out to nearly the 22nd century.

I can't account for why this is so. As an engineer, I tend to ask a simple question: "and you are going to accomplish that how?"

Now, I would point out that this is exactly the same thinking that got the EIA into trouble with the IEO documents. If you want an example (and there are quite a few) go back and read the International Energy Outlook on oil production. Pick the North Sea in particular. Now in the earliest version I think you can find online it seems like they correctly projected the peaking in 1999-2000 (might be a previous version hardcopy). Then notice that all of a sudden they are pushing the peak date well into the first decade of the 21st century.

It wasn't until the IEO 2006 that they finally got around to admitting that the North Sea might be in decline. The UK peaked in 1999 (the second peak with ~110 fields in service compared to the first peak with ~30 in service) and Norway peaked in 2000.

Nor do they seem to get that an "undulating plateau" is death to a system that is entorely dependent upon growth for it's own self-defined "health."

I'll be looking at my notes this weekend and putting some thoughts together for a Forum I manage. I place some additional thought here, as well. I recorded some of the presentations (audio and video) for accuracy.

Hi Star,

Thanks for responding and for the example. I hope you can write this up as an article for TOD, perhaps.