106 comments on Wikipedia Megaproject Update (August 2008)
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
106 comments on Wikipedia Megaproject Update (August 2008)
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
- What "Lower Consumption" Means
- Tricking and Treating the Future
- Meeting Energy Decline Part-Way - Potatoes?
TOD:Europe
- The US stimulus and "green jobs"
- EROWI - energy return of water invested
- An interview with Stoneleigh - the case for deflation
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
- The Bullroarer - Saturday 7th November 2009
- The Bullroarer - Friday 30th October 2009
- Details of Solar Flagships Released
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
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- 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.
“Considering the many productive uses of petroleum, burning it for fuel is like burning a Picasso for heat.”
—Big Oil Executive
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
Hmm
1.) Fighting for it ? Yep
2.) Only the strongest/wealthiest get it ? Yep
3.) Economically powerful enough to borrow to buy it ? Yep
Actually my point is in the real world everything your saying is not happening is happening.
Geologic depletion itself presents the problem as a slow steady decline in most models its not clear that they are correct.
But reality is a different picture. In a few years we will know the truth but the chances of you being correct in your description are slim just like I'm willing to bet 100 dollars that future production will be less then is predicted by the model used in this paper. Are you willing to take that bet ?
I'm glad you agree with me. What made you change your mind? (Just trolling! I'm joking, joking!)
:)
Actually its important the reason for the production curves for oil is because of above ground factors certainly the details of the reservoir effect its production profile but we could have produced our reserves for 1000 years if we chose to.
Or never for that matter.
Geologies input is given a certain extraction profile whats the final result.
Everything else from the extraction profile i.e who/what/when/where/why of oil extraction on up is above ground decisions.
This is important because real future oil production is at the moment on a month by month basis depending on geopolitical events and hurricanes in the gulf. And major disruption in oil supplies from now on out will probably lead to war that will further disrupt oil supplies. After the US elections tension may drop and we are back worried about geologic depletion but its going to keep flipping back and forth.
As we flip this coin so to speak the chances are incredibility high that above ground factors will result in lower oil production then we would see vs the baseline geologic depletion.
At the longest we are at best on a five year horizon within five years peak oil will have to be accepted within five years after that chances are society will be quite different from what it is today.
This is certain even from the geologic graph.
Some dodgy pseudopsychology in posts above:
On the contrary, one of the most important facts of human psychology is great individual differences in many respects. For instance Mozart said he considered death would be his truest friend, and Schubert every night hoped he would not wake up the next morning. In a late decadent society such as here/now, there will be a preponderance of short-termism, wishfulthinking and pretentiousness, but still it is not universal. But some behaviours dominate a society. The wastefulness of high-livers tends to defeat the efforts of more prudent others. High spenders force up prices for everyone else. Peaceful people are dominated by warmongers. Etc.
No. Some more basic principles of science are basing one's conclusions on demonstrable evidence and reasoning. And getting beyond mere "authority" assertions by providing justification of one's assertions by presenting one's data and reasoning. This means that everyone can judge the scientific case for themself (in principle) rather than having to rely on some contest of either status or numbers or a mix thereof. I didn't take the view that AnthroGlobalWarming is happening until I saw the case behind the (near)consensus. The (near)consensus (of intellectual prostitutes) is certainly utterly wrong on other matters such as the hiv-aids hoax.