<Drumbeat: March 17, 2009 The Oil Drum When do you think peak oil was/will be here?>

176 comments on World Oil Production Peaked in 2008

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

x on March 17, 2009 - 10:26am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Another chance for me to rail against comparing, adding and etc. things that are different. Why do analysts insist on putting oil sands and such output in the Peak Oil argument? Can't do that.

Peak Oil was and still is about conventional oil production. It is the decline and eventual end of oil that Hubbert and the rest like Deffeyes were worried about. It is conventional oil that has had the high return for decades. While other output may be similar, the yield and method of extraction is different enough to be excluded.

No insight is gained by mixing these oil resources. All it does is obfuscate and confuse. Could that be the reason it is done?

Let each form of liquid fuel, or any other fuel for that matter, stand on its merits or demerits. Logic requires it. Befuddled thinkers who compare, add, subtract and etc. things that are different add nothing to understanding. They do not understand basic principles of logic.

There are some things in mathematics one can not do like divide by zero. Logic has rules too and one of them is that things that are different can not be added etc.. If they are anyway the result is silly nonsense.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
aangel on March 17, 2009 - 11:00am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Like everything in life, I don't think there is one correct way to look at this situation. You keep trying to assert that your way is the "best" way and other peoples' way is the "wrong" way.

Points of view are like tools in a toolbox. Use the one best for the job.

Point of View 1
Group all liquids because ultimately it's the aggregate that's important to our end uses. This works because the liquids, with some time and effort, are often interchangeable to the machines that run them (or you can change the machine). This is a more strategic view.

Point of View 2
Distinguish the liquids to gain a better understanding of the immediate situation so that short-term decisions can be made, like "will we have a shortage of home heating oil this winter?' etc. This can often benefit tactical choices.

If you have a different way to look at things, I request that you simply say something like, "The benefit of the author's point of view is x but if you look at it from a different point of view, which I'll describe in a moment, the benefit is y."

The benefit of approaching discussions this way is that, If everyone were to do this, we wouldn't keep getting into these endless "he's wrong and I'm right!" battles here.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
stravinsky7 on March 18, 2009 - 1:19am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

i don't think x is trying to start an argument.

it is not wrong to project "peak liquids". In fact, it is vitally important.

however, the article purports to be on peak oil, which it is not, in fact.

"liquids" is frustrating because it is obfuscating. those who have studied enough know the vast difference between "liquids which possess potential chemical energy" and "crude oil" understand that to oh ummm probably 99.2ish percent of the population its all the same. (But the shape of the graphs the two terms produce are not).

yeah, x. i'm with ya.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ccpo on March 18, 2009 - 1:42am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The problem with x is that he/she says you can't compare apples and oranges (different liquids), but that you also can't count fruit (EROEI).

Can't have it both ways.

Cheers

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
aangel on March 18, 2009 - 12:45pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Leaving aside x's intent (I have no idea what it is) my point is that "there is no one and true and correct point of view usable in all situations" and x keeps asserting that the way people are using liquids can't be done and that his/her way is the "correct way."

There is no "correct" way to view the topic -- there are just ways that give different results depending on what the goal is.

Each point of view has value because it is able to show something that is hidden when using a different point of view.

In the diagram a. below, can you see the orange dot? Of course not, but change the background (the point of view, or filter, if you wish) and the dot becomes visible as in b.

Photobucket

The point of view x is advocating has perfectly good uses but is not as effective when using a different filter of goals and understanding. Same with the point of view he is asserting is "illogical" or "silly nonsense."

If you want a well-rounded understanding of a topic, gather as many points of view as you can. Each one will expand your understanding because each one reveals something unable to be seen by the others.

In this particular case, it is pretty clear to me that x is unable to see what other people are seeing. Does that make him/her a bad person or stupid? Not at all. But if he/she keeps insisting that his/her view is the only one worth examining, it does make him/her in the very least dogmatic and positional. It also turns the conversation from an exploration into a battle in which there must be a winner and a loser.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ccpo on March 19, 2009 - 1:16pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

But if he/she keeps insisting that his/her view is the only one worth examining, it does make him/her in the very least dogmatic and positional. It also turns the conversation from an exploration into a battle in which there must be a winner and a loser.

To be fair to x, your position stated above is just as dogmatic and positional. What is it they say, not making a choice is a choice? I often enjoy your posts, but sometimes I scroll right through them because they are filled with New Agey, nobody's wrong, everybody's right stuff like the above. (And I was very much of that sort of mind in the past, and it still informs my thinking.)

The obvious problem is that sometimes there is *one* best answer, and to say that isn't true is simply false so we need to be just as aware of the possibility there is only one answer as we are that it is *usually* best to take all views into account.

That said, I don't think EROEI is one of those cases where x is right.

Cheers

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
aangel on March 20, 2009 - 3:07pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I assert that "right" and "wrong" exist only in language and are convenient labels. What you call "right" someone else calls "wrong" so clearly their usage depends on the context in which they are used. If it were not so, there would be no disagreements about what is "right" and what is "wrong."

Call it New Agey if you if you'd like, but it's actually epistemology, or at least that's my point of view.

;-)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ccpo on March 20, 2009 - 3:43pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

It's claptrap when you take it that far, Aangel.

Murder is bad. Very few disagree, and those few are murderers.

C'mon... If you can't accept the shortcomings of your stance, you are being nothing more than dogmatic.

You keep referring back to what language is and isn't. I think you sometimes forget that the medium isn't the message, but that the medium we have is the way the message gets transmitted, which means the medium actually is a large portion of the message.

There's not much value in getting too "cute" with this stuff as you lose the real medium: the audience.

Just an observation from someone who makes their living working in the language.

Cheers

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
noutram on March 17, 2009 - 2:10pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

But even 'conventional oil' can be broken down into categories like onshore, offshore/deep sea/polar with different cost structures/margins/etc.

All these different sources of energy have different EROI, what's clear is that we are transitioning to an era where the cheapest most easily available energy has gone and as a consequence an increasingly greater chunk of civilisations resources will have to go to maintain base supply -let alone grow it.

And since the renewables/alternatives are 'priced' in energy units (steel, copper, silicon, etc.) as this base price creeps up so will the price of these alternatives resulting in the conclusion that they will never be a cheaper substitute when viewed on a short term basis. The main difference however is that the ongoing source of energy supplied by the renewable group once created is of course effectively limitless within the confines of our needs.

Nick.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
sofistek on March 17, 2009 - 8:03pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

"The main difference however is that the ongoing source of energy supplied by the renewable group once created is of course effectively limitless within the confines of our needs."

Assuming our needs are modest, that may be true. However, one should not assume that renewable resources are unlimited. Even renewable resources will be unsustainable if they are consumed above their renewal rate, above the rate that doesn't adversely impact the biosphere, or in a way that damages our environment.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Luke H on March 18, 2009 - 4:14am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Even renewables have a significant non renewable aspect. The resources required to build and service the renewables' physical plants, storage facilities and shipping/transmission facilities are not renenwable and are not equally abundant or accessible. Energy availability is only part of the equation as we start to hook up the rest of humanity.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on March 18, 2009 - 7:28am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Those are usually renewable as well. Some hydroelectricity, some aluminum source (recycled or not) = Transmission wires and more.

Steel is very recyclable, and several energy sources can be used.

Concrete is less recyclable.

Alan

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
mcgowanmc on March 18, 2009 - 8:53am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

"There are some things in mathematics one can not do like divide by zero. Logic has rules too and one of them is that things that are different can not be added etc.. If they are anyway the result is silly nonsense."

EROEI- If it costs a barrel to pull a barrel why pull the
barrel?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
xeroid on March 18, 2009 - 12:13pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

You could convert wind to oil and carry on using ICE vehicles without needing batteries to use wind for transport?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

176 comments on World Oil Production Peaked in 2008

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version