You say .."oh we will just do this and then do that and we will be fine"....

"Just cut half the sheet metal off our cars and we can drive all we want."

Who needs AC when the sun is shining just use PV and solar cells. Like 'boom' , their in place..let the good times roll.

Tell me...that good stuff your puffing on...can I get some so I can quit worrying about life? Sixty eight years at this and a whippersnapper , snapping his whipper tells  how to live thru the worst diaster in the worlds history with just a few motley phrases.

Were you here during the 70's? I was. In the middle of madness on a day when the oil embargo was announced. You likely were not. You have no clue as to what it was like nor what it will be like.

I'm not convinced wave mechanics even answers why.

I do admit that I've never seen any one do a full wave treatment for a classically chaotic system. I'm not sure its possible except with quantum computers which is interesting in and of itself.

Their are some cites that point to work here

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987AnPhy.173..355F

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=13635943

One big reason I left the field is I did not feel that quantum chaos research accomplished much if any increase in our theoretical framework. It was initially interesting for modeling various systems but not for expanding the framework.

Good stuff I'm sure.

Standard QM does not defy common sense at all... once you broaden your mind a bit. What it does defy is a naive interpretation of the world based on macroscopic observations alone. But even that is not quite correct. Men has been seeing quantum effects for as long as we exist... we just couldn't make sense of them as quantum effects, that's all. So unless we have a strong urge to define ourselves by what we didn't know for most of our race's existence instead of what we really are, none of this presents much of a problem.

The wave/particle properties of electrons exist independent of  observation. The univers does not care much about anyone looking at it. That it does is just another anthropocentric misconception of the 19th century. Time to get rid of it. That is not to say the electrons ever noticed our somewhat arbitrary disctinction of their real properties into classes of semi-classical experiments.

I don't think that is correct; we simply don't have a way of observing an electron without touching it with something. The physical intermediary act of the observation causes the changes in the electron, not the consciousness behind it.

The Quantum system will oscillate in fact this is the base for a laser cavity. Even a single atom would couple to the cavity. You can't decouple from the cavity even if its perfectly reflecting since by definition excludes certain wavelengths if its finite. Your argument would require a infinitely large reflecting cavity. A bit of a oxymoron.

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v79/i25/p4974_1

Even your thermal bath is not true their exist a finite chance for pair creation resulting in a real particle. This is the information leakage problem with black holes. The existence of any gradient even in a vacuum results in the non zero chance for a virtual pair to result in real particles.

Thus if you left perfectly empty space alone long enough it would eventually create particles causing a gradient causing a black hole that would increase particle creation at its event horizon ...

Thus if its any consolation their is a very good chance that other intelligent life will be able to detect we existed for a  long after we are gone.

So we are like cat urine for a planet.

Sorry, that's all the info I have.

I thought I would share this link with you.  I am not going to be around when the blog opens up as I'm moving.  Maybe you can repost it for me =)  

Interesting Article! Car Sharing picks up speed

-C.

How about we say

"waste destruction"

and

"conservation incentivation"?

These are both way more true to the problem and they also suggest that what is happening is not really a bad thing.

It is also the basis of Campbell/ASPO's Uppsala Protocol.  A measure to make certain that rich nations do not out bid the third world in a post peak environment.

It is always those who pay taxes and generate income who pay the price for anything. That is such a trivial insight that I thought it was known to everyone. Or does anyone here expect the tooth fairy to come by and drop billions of barrels of oil into empty wells? Just wondering based on the general emotional outburst in your comment.

Will you and I have to pay for this? Of course we will. The question is not "if?" but "how?". And that is where politicians play a serious role. They are supposed to show a little bit of foresight and take the sting out of problems, if possible. Just because they don't do their assigned jobs well in the US does not mean that these considerations are not part of their general job descriptions.

As to which planet I live on: Earth, of course. Where do you come from?

Am I serious? Of course, I am. Now, I was a little bit joking about the solar panel part. Solar will only play a long term role. For the first two decades we will mostly get by increasing our efficiency. After that renewables will have kicked in to the extent that they will actually matter.

And yes, again, YOU and I, my friend, will have to pay for all of this. Just like we paid for the nuclear power plants, the hydroelectric plants, the power grid, the sewer systems, the highways and all the other things we use every day. Nobody else did... it was us, our parents and our grandparents. And we and our kids will pay for the next technological changes in our energy infrastructure, too.

Seriously, how hard is that to understand?

Well said. <APPLAUD>

And the when tax cuts finally kicked in, the awesome growth on top of all the other economic regions gave us a Global GDP of 4.5%.  Unprecendented.

Tax cuts hum? And to what purchasing power cost? And why is the US economy going in to the red right now? You could always cut taxes even more, or even abolish them.

Everyone in the sector knows technology and plus $40 prices have inspired a URR spurt of 1000-Gb.

Where in hell is that oil sprouting? I'd like to have a bit for myself, or is it a secret?

Freddy, there's one thing you have to understand, most people witting here at TOD think with their own heads, there is no consensus of Peak being upon us right now (most think that it isn't - that's what the graphs tell you).

We chose to study things by our own means, not for someone else's heads. If we followed the MSM like you say, none of us would be here. That's why we are heretics, and being an heretics doesn't mean we are wrong.

Freddy Hutter says,
"But when u consider that the bottom-up analysts (skrebowski, koppelaar, cera & iea) see 11-mbd in production & refining capacity under way, there is no doubt that the Peak is a long way off.  By the average of the 13 Outlooks, it will be 90-mbd in 2020."

Ahhh, Freddy, you underestimate us!  We can burn through 90-mbd and still be hungry for twice that much.  Because you see, that's the issue....what the helll does it matter....if the petrol industry can provide 90 billion a day, we can burn 105, and if they can deliver 105, we'll blast 120 out the exhaust pipes and smoke stacks...you see, consuming fuel is great because it's like gambling...the only limit is the one the house finally decides to set.

And of course, we need that fuel right?  Why should we tolerate a v-8 engine, when a V-12 makes a prettier purr, and of you think that's pure art, why not a V-16....I once even saw a V-24 on the drawing board....imagine that with superchargers!  On the lakes, the twin engined supercharged boats are now the standard, why would anyone want to look like a piker with a little boat with one engine?  The humiliation would make the fine sport of boating not worth doing!!  And now to shop for a truck to tow it with (because you want folks to see in in your drive, and out the interstate, the lake is just too small an audience), the fad now is to do something as close as possible to a "road locomotive" sort of theme, with giant engines (Diesels are fancied here, but not the little wimpy economy things, but giant Cummins with blowers and "kits" to jack the noise and push more air in) and huge double cabs with all the luxuries of home, a rack for a couple of motorcycles to scamper around the campground....I mean consumption is needed to fuel the ole' economy, I'm doing a service to the nation....and pouring that bread out of the country into the hands of those who would gut me and hang me from a fence if they ever got the chance, but hey, that's why I like an army between me and them...

But sometimes, before we go ahead and finish all the light sweet crude and natural gas off, let's stop and smell the roses...or more accurately, take a long loving look at the molecule that is crude oil or natural gas....in on fast whoosh it goes up the exhaust....in a second, the hydrogen is separated, the heat released, and the carbon pushed into the air,  gone without thought, a molecule that has proven itself to be one of the most useful in human history, a gem of natural chemistry and earthly existence as fine and elegant as water or natural diamonds.  Would we burn diamonds, or make a sport out of trying to destroy them if there was ANY way we could avoid it?

So let not the cloud of concern get to you Freddy, you may be right.  We may be able to deliver 90 or 100 or 150 million barrels a day.  As we convert more and more of the worlds resources into the tools to extract, and refine, and move, dispose of the filth from a tidal torrent of  fossil fuel, we can say, "see, I told you so!  We could deliver 120 million barrels a day!!  We were RIGHT!"

But of course, it will not be enough, as we race onward, and onward, relentless, now 130, then 140, then 150....no limit, at least not until we turn the world inside out, and leave the people as peasant serfs to the extracting trade in a never ending bid to produce more, and MORE.  Steel, ships, pumps, drills, compressors, more steel, pipelines, labor, we will need more labor, and we notice that fewer and fewer can even afford to operate any auto or boat, much less the turbo and supercharged 12 or 16 cylinder suction pumps that suck down one of the most useful and valued minerals for nothing but a thrill....
Now 160 mbd....is there any limit?  The little aged baby boomer in his little V-6 air conditioned Buick,  idling along to the golf course or the doctors office now will seem like a piker, a peasant compared to the hogs that continue to crave more, and them more again, the young "transformers" of the world, for whom the aged who originally built this system will either step aside or be shoved aside.

The question:  Is there a point at which you, Freddy, look back, and ask yourself, was it really necessary?  Couldn't we have had smaller, elegant boats and cars and houses, with technology that drew even a small percent from the natural surroundings, and saved a few precious small  pools of such a wonderful molecule?  Would it have been so bad?  Couldn't it have even been fun to have some of the resources go to the people of the world instead of the giant engines of the world?  What will we say when our children and grandchildren ask, would it have been that bad?
Will we say I didn't want to be a gloomy type, I wanted to be UP, I wanted to be cheerful, and prove we could produce it, TONS of it, and BURN IT, every bit!!  Will we be shaken when the child sees the waste, the stupidity, the arrogant idiocy of such an argument and says, Freddy, you make me sick?   The child may say no one could have been that idiotic.  No one could have seen reality in that way.  But the child, as we know, would be wrong.  There actually is a time and place on Earth where the idea of attempting to constrain the waste, to slow the roving multi million unit blast furnace that is the consume for sport trade, to look for elegant and interesting ways to do the same job without the waste of a world, there actually was a time when this was seen as a vice.  

Good luck, Freddy, on your quest to 90 million barrels a day....and then 100, 120.....infinity?

As you say, Freddy "This is a psychologicial phenom."  But hold your pity in reserve.  Whether you prove right or wrong about whether we can make 90 mbd by 2020, (and going the way we are, we will need MUCH more than that, won't we?), we may all need the pity.  

Roger Conner  known to you as ThatsItImout

The only geology part of my argument is that the giant fields may deplete faster than we assume leading to a lower geology peak than predicted. But we don't and wont know if this is true for a few years. I'm convinced but I readily admit its debatable. If true then this logistic peak will turn into the geologic peak although it did not start out that way. Its debatable but if the decline rates are as fast as I think they might be we will know in a year if Ghawar has peaked.

Finally I've posted a few times that price fluctuations or chaotic prices with spikes is a fingerprint of peak oil I find it funny that you bring them up.

So considering that I feel I'm one of the biggest peak now people around and even I say its a logistic peak at this time I can't see how you can accuse the group of claiming a geologic peak I don't even claim it.

So agian as far as I know the worst case scenario with any reasonable support is a logistic peak as you claim with a chance that enough of the giant fields are declining fast enough to cause a geologic peak that cannot be overcome by new production comming on stream. And agian if it is happening we will know its possible and its debatable.

The only contentious issue boils down to are the giant fields peaking and if so are their declines rates steep enough to ensure our logistic peak becomes a geologic peak.
Time will tell.

Sorry I know I said the same thing five different ways.
But its important to stress that yes I think most people recognize that we are at a logistic peak or at least we started that way.

Anyone else want to claim they are more of a peak now nut then me speak up :)

The oil is there.  The production is in place.  All that is missing is the spare capacity that moderates the irritant price swings.  And that will be upon us a year from now; when we'll be bouncing the 87-mbd marker post.

Ah yes, that pesky 'spare capacity'. But don't worry folks, we will have jam tomorrow! A whole 1.1% more!

Only... the IEA are predicting demand growth in 2007 of 1.7%. So we are short 500 Kbd. Hmm, so much for spare capacity. Ok, just ignore the price, it is just an irritant.

And 90 Mbd by 2020? That's a tiny 4 Mbd increase over 14 years... not going to be much spare capacity there.

I realise that Freddy is just ranting and facts don't matter, but even his own figures indicate a problem. Do you worry about drowning when the flood water reaches your waist? Or when it reaches your neck? Or are you like Freddy, and wait til it's over your head?

It is non-traditional liquids that pumped storage up so high in 3q... maybe its seasonal nature explains why sotcks are falling even faster, now down to last year's level and 50Mb down from the peak. If true, we will always see a surge in 3q and a drop in 4q, meaning avg production is modest; spread 3q production surge over the year and its not so impressive.  Many ethanol plants are under construction, wonder at what point corn prices rise to where it becomes uneconomical in spite of teh subsidy.  Always did like corn on the cob...

Actually, spot prices is what OPEC watches and responds to.  And, it can't be manipulated for long - shorters must later buy, so overall volatility is high but teh trend is true.

TOday, most new fields, certainly the big off shore as well as the aging giants, are being developed with first rate modern tech; water injection from the beginning, horizontal wells as the rising water gets close to the gas cap.  However, this means that there is no secondary, it has already been produced.  When the water reaches the gas cap it is time to convert the oil field to a gas field.

IMO we are beginning to see the dominoes fall... the north slope, the north sea, cantarell, burghan, danqing, even mighty ghawar; and, for those major regions for which data is available (eg the first 4, non-opec mentioned), we are seeing rapid declines, some above 15%/a, and which was not predicted by the professionals, eg your fav, IEA.  IMO, charters will begin raising their decline rates.  Note, for example, that Chris apparently worries that the rate he is using may be too low.

NG shortages might stall both oil sands and ethanol, or maybe not.  New production, including non traditional liquids, may manage to maintain the plateau, or even incrase production a bit; does it matter if, by 2010, production manages to avg 87Mb/d?  So, some TOD punters would be wrong, and your 2010 ponies would come in.  SO what?  China wants 20% more/a (clearly deserved because they make the world's goods) and by 2010 this will matter.  OIl exporters want at least 6% more/a - clearly not justified because their production is falling - but, can we deny them?  We want a paltry 1-2%/a more, clearly justified because we are allowing our population to increase 1%/a thru immigration, legal and not, and meanwhile we don't negotiate.  It seems very unlikely the world is going to get what it wants, in which case price will become increasingly irritable.

For most of the world it is price that matters, not peak.  FOr me, price has been the main point since I began studying the issue in dec 04.  Will price rise or fall?  PO'ers and gw'ers want high prices to cut consumption and encourage the move to other sources; long investors simply want high prices to fatten profits. Peak is interesting, of course, not least because of what peak acceptance will do for share values.

Regarding declines, I could see a point where C & C declines at a 4-5% or greater rate until you get to an increasing percentage coming from much slower to produce, poorer eroei resources such as tar sands, CTL, biofuels, etc. This could lead to a gradual decline down to a flattening plateau at a lower rate for an extended period of decades or more. This would prevent the "stranded URR" but be consistent with a relatively near (e.g 5 yrs from now) peak.  I understand your peak to exhaustion number, but I guess I was more concerned for now with your present to peak (or plateau) time frame given declines working against new production. Peak date will depend on decline rates of major existing fields, which is as yet unknown but we have seen can exceed 10%. Yes, I have read the Skrebowski, Koppellar and other reports as well as Staniford's assessments, and I think they all have merit. I'm not convinced about the merits of CERA, IEA or EIA. Unless I'm wrong, they've missed every local peak to date which doesn't give me confidence in their estimate of ultimate peak.