Why Peak Oil will never reach $500/barrel

[jiimbergin]

Re: Why Peak Oil will never reach $500/barrel

Understatement of the year. And Again, just want to make sure people understand the nuances of the subject matter. Fair?

very fair to help people understand the nuances, but this was a good article and too many of the comments here indicated that it was all wrong.:confused:

jim

[ggirod]

Re: Why Peak Oil will never reach $500/barrel

Here are some more reasons why oil will not reach $500 per barrel

Keep in mind this was with '60s technology. Now it could be more efficient. People will resist the idea that the cheapest alternative to oil is conservation. That is, until they don't. Then sense will prevail, consumption will drop, and alternatives of all sorts will thrive.

A little bicycle generator and modern turn signal module and maybe a brake light would make these great vehicles.

[gnk]

Re: Why Peak Oil will never reach $500/barrel

Here are some more reasons why oil will not reach $500 per barrel

Keep in mind this was with '60s technology. Now it could be more efficient. People will resist the idea that the cheapest alternative to oil is conservation. That is, until they don't. Then sense will prevail, consumption will drop, and alternatives of all sorts will thrive.

A little bicycle generator and modern turn signal module and maybe a brake light would make these great vehicles.

I won't try to predict the price of oil, or its limitations.

However, I would assume oil would have to go to a much higher price for such vehicles to become commonplace - mostly in the west, and particularly in the US.

People don't buy a car based on where oil is going. They buy a car based on where oil *is*. At least most people. And then, that's it - they don't have the money to buy a car again for years. There is definitely a lag time between oil prices and consumer reaction.

And don't forget Europe. A gallon of gasoline in Europe on average, is 2.3 X the same cost here in the US. What would that equate to in barrel terms? There are 42 gallons in a barrel. After refining, you can make about 19-20 gallons of gasoline from that barrel.

Amidst a parabolic rises in oil, Europe has the luxury of chopping down some of that roughly 70% tax on gasoline. What luxury do we have?

I submit that oil can indeed go much higher because it affects different regions of the world differently. In india, incomes are rising, yet many drive a Tata, and they don't live like we do, with lengthy commutes and SUVs, and tar roofs, and vinyl siding, etc... Whereas we, unlike India and Europe and other places, are more susceptible.

Per capital oil consumption in the US is extremely disproportianately higher than anywgere else in the world. To me, that says others have much more wiggle room for higher oil than we do.

And so... watch out world. Should Oil attain such heights, you will not recognize the US. It will become a very different, and angry animal.

[xPat]

Re: Why Peak Oil will never reach $500/barrel

Wow! I hadn't even realized this thread was here. What a discussion I've missed!

Jtabeb, thanks for all the kind words! I know you're just trying to suck up to me with all the compliments and flattery... :p

Seriously, I really do think there is a lesson we might all learn here. The lesson is about how just one point of contention can completely bias our views. Jtabeb, I've seen enough of your writing to know you're a very smart guy. I don't think you could possibly have missed so many points from the article (which you did, as evidenced by your misplaced criticisms) if your openness to the piece on whole hadn't been compromised by the 100-years comment.

There's a very interesting and perhaps amusing back-story here. The first versions of the article didn't have that comment in them. But I added it on the final edit pass in order to contend with exactly the same kind of emotional bypass of critical thinking that Jtabeb experienced, but in the opposite polarity!

I had sent a draft to a friend in the oil business, who immediately replied that he didn't believe in Peak Oil and wasn't going to read it. He sent me (for the umpteenth time in the last 3 years) this blurb to "set me straight":

Except from “SOFT ENERGY VS. HARD FACTS,” by Jerry Taylor and Peter VanDorn

….

Reserve Estimates

If fossil fuels were being depleted at an alarming rate (or even at any consequential rate), the data would reflect such trends, but they do not. If present consumption levels were to hold steady, today’s proven reserves of oil would last 44 years – a reserve 15 times larger than when record keeping began in 1948. Proven reserves of natural gas would last 70 years, a reserve almost 5 times larger than that of 30 years ago. Proven reserves of coal would last 221 years.

Reserve estimates only reflect petroleum that “can be recovered under present and expected local economic conditions with existing available technology.” If relative scarcity of fossil fuels were actually to increase, prices would reflect that fact and those inventories would expand dramatically. In addition, such figures presume no further advances in extraction or energy efficiency technology (more than offsetting the presumed lack of increasing annual consumption). Third, the world’s stock of fossil fuels is far greater than traditional oil, natural gas, and coal. For example, “Orimulsion became the ‘fourth fossil fuel’ in the mid-1980’s when technological improvements made Venezuela’s reserve of the tar-like substance commercial,” notes energy economist Robert L. Bradley, Jr. “Venezuela’s reserve equivalent of 1.2 trillion barrels exceeds the world’s known reserves of crude oil, and other countries’ more modest supplies of natural bitumen add to this total.” Tar sands and oil shale also promise similar supplies of fuel if world petroleum prices were to reach $30a barrel.

Thus, the U.S. Geological Survey did not attract criticism when it calculated 25 years ago that there are enough fossil fuels to last 520 years given projected rates of demand, whereas 10 years ago that figure was raised by some analysts to 650 years. Today, one prominent study estimates that 6 trillion barrels of recoverable conventional petroleum exist today (a reserve of approximately 231 years given present consumption) and another 15 trillion barrels of unconventional petroleum is recoverable given favorable economics. Given present consumption, that would give use 231 years of conventional petroleum and 808 years of petroleum reserves of all kinds.

All else being equal, the cheapest exploitable mineral deposits (including petroleum) are developed first, and costs, therefore, would seem to have to rise inevitably over time. However, technological improvements counteract the cost increases over time. Consequently, proven economic reserves have expanded over time at real (inflation-adjusted) prices that have not, contrary to widespread warnings to the contrary, increase dramatically over time. In fact, gasoline prices in 1998 are substantially lower after adjusting for inflation than at any time since the late 1940’s.

A typical story is the Kern River field in California, discovered in 1899. In 1942, known reserves were 54 million barrels. From 1942 through 1986, the field produced 736 million barrels, more than 13 times the known reserves of 1942, and reserves in 1986 were estimated to be 970 million barrels. In the Persian Gulf, estimated reserves in 1944 were 21 billion barrels. Cumulative production from 1944 to 1993 were 188 billion barrels, 9 times the 1944 estimate, and remaining reserves in 1993 were 633 billion barrels, 32 times the 1944 estimates.

I'm well aware of the shortcomings of the assumptions made in the above, but that's not the point. This is what the masses believe, right or wrong.

So you see, Jtabeb, there was actually some subtext behind that 100 years comment. It was basically, Ok, Dave, I acknowledged your stupid f***ing point about how much oil is in the ground that we can't get at. So now that I have acknowledged this irrelevant detail, read the goddamn article and pay attention to what it says about the fact that we can't get at most of what's left at economic extraction costs!!!

I kept the line in the article because I learned that my friend's mind shut down on the mention of anything that related to "running out of oil". He knew the oil was in the ground (albeit unreachable economically) and just wasn't going to process the information in the article rationally unless that point had been acknowledged. So the reason I put that comment there (prominently at the top of the executive summary) was to make sure people like him with that bias didn't "turn off" and tune out. I failed to anticipate the opposite reaction from those of you with the opposite bias, which I share incidentally.

Jtabeb, you had the exact same reaction Dave did, but in reverse. As soon as you saw the comment about 100 years supply still in the ground (irrefutably true, by the way, even if largely irrelevant), you just tuned out. As a result you completely misinterpreted the rest of the article, and levied criticisms about inflation even though I had very clearly addressed that point and others you criticized.

I wonder if you and others would have "gotten it" and not missed so many other points (that most of you seem to have gotten wrong in your criticisms) if that one "offensive statement" had not been there?

Several people seemed to imply that I was "ignoring" the obvious fact that other countries could out-bid the United States if price controls were imposed on oil imports. Well, Duh! If you go back and actually pay attention to what the article says, you'll see that's addressed. The point is that I expect the U.S. may eventually tell oil-rich states "You're going to sell your oil to us, not China, for the price we tell you, or else we're going to kill you dead and take your oil whether you like it or not". The obvious scenario of a "higher bidder" (in economic terms for the oil) is irrelevant. It would take a more formidable military force to stand up to the U.S. and say "No, you're not going to bully them into selling oil to you below market rates. You're going to let them sell it to us if that's what's in their best interest". For the moment, nobody has the firepower to do that.

There's nothing to be gained from arguing any further about the content of the article, except that I will say that after carefully reading all the replies here, I didn't find a single bona-fide criticism that wasn't already addressed by the article. Just lots of misplaced criticisms that evidenced to me that the posters hadn't absorbed the message of the article. Perhaps I did a poor job of expressing my points, but I think the 100-year bias thing is a more likely explanation.

The part of this that was a real learning experience for me was to see how people with a bias that has emotion attached to it react to things and close their minds down. My friend Dave just wasn't going to take anything in the article seriously until it acknowledged the completely irrelevant fact that plenty of oil is in the ground that we can't get to. A whole bunch of people here (whom I've seen demonstrate very strong critical thinking skills in other threads) just couldn't keep an open mind after they were affected in the opposite way by a statement that was intended to defuse the objections of "the other biased audience".

xPat

[jiimbergin]

Re: Why Peak Oil will never reach $500/barrel

Wow! I hadn't even realized this thread was here. What a discussion I've missed!

Jtabeb, thanks for all the kind words! I know you're just trying to suck up to me with all the compliments and flattery... :p

Seriously, I really do think there is a lesson we might all learn here. The lesson is about how just one point of contention can completely bias our views. Jtabeb, I've seen enough of your writing to know you're a very smart guy. I don't think you could possibly have missed so many points from the article (which you did, as evidenced by your misplaced criticisms) if your openness to the piece on whole hadn't been compromised by the 100-years comment.

There's a very interesting and perhaps amusing back-story here. The first versions of the article didn't have that comment in them. But I added it on the final edit pass in order to contend with exactly the same kind of emotional bypass of critical thinking that Jtabeb experienced, but in the opposite polarity!

I had sent a draft to a friend in the oil business, who immediately replied that he didn't believe in Peak Oil and wasn't going to read it. He sent me (for the umpteenth time in the last 3 years) this blurb to "set me straight":

Except from “SOFT ENERGY VS. HARD FACTS,” by Jerry Taylor and Peter VanDorn

….

Reserve Estimates

If fossil fuels were being depleted at an alarming rate (or even at any consequential rate), the data would reflect such trends, but they do not. If present consumption levels were to hold steady, today’s proven reserves of oil would last 44 years – a reserve 15 times larger than when record keeping began in 1948. Proven reserves of natural gas would last 70 years, a reserve almost 5 times larger than that of 30 years ago. Proven reserves of coal would last 221 years.

Reserve estimates only reflect petroleum that “can be recovered under present and expected local economic conditions with existing available technology.” If relative scarcity of fossil fuels were actually to increase, prices would reflect that fact and those inventories would expand dramatically. In addition, such figures presume no further advances in extraction or energy efficiency technology (more than offsetting the presumed lack of increasing annual consumption). Third, the world’s stock of fossil fuels is far greater than traditional oil, natural gas, and coal. For example, “Orimulsion became the ‘fourth fossil fuel’ in the mid-1980’s when technological improvements made Venezuela’s reserve of the tar-like substance commercial,” notes energy economist Robert L. Bradley, Jr. “Venezuela’s reserve equivalent of 1.2 trillion barrels exceeds the world’s known reserves of crude oil, and other countries’ more modest supplies of natural bitumen add to this total.” Tar sands and oil shale also promise similar supplies of fuel if world petroleum prices were to reach $30a barrel.

Thus, the U.S. Geological Survey did not attract criticism when it calculated 25 years ago that there are enough fossil fuels to last 520 years given projected rates of demand, whereas 10 years ago that figure was raised by some analysts to 650 years. Today, one prominent study estimates that 6 trillion barrels of recoverable conventional petroleum exist today (a reserve of approximately 231 years given present consumption) and another 15 trillion barrels of unconventional petroleum is recoverable given favorable economics. Given present consumption, that would give use 231 years of conventional petroleum and 808 years of petroleum reserves of all kinds.

All else being equal, the cheapest exploitable mineral deposits (including petroleum) are developed first, and costs, therefore, would seem to have to rise inevitably over time. However, technological improvements counteract the cost increases over time. Consequently, proven economic reserves have expanded over time at real (inflation-adjusted) prices that have not, contrary to widespread warnings to the contrary, increase dramatically over time. In fact, gasoline prices in 1998 are substantially lower after adjusting for inflation than at any time since the late 1940’s.

A typical story is the Kern River field in California, discovered in 1899. In 1942, known reserves were 54 million barrels. From 1942 through 1986, the field produced 736 million barrels, more than 13 times the known reserves of 1942, and reserves in 1986 were estimated to be 970 million barrels. In the Persian Gulf, estimated reserves in 1944 were 21 billion barrels. Cumulative production from 1944 to 1993 were 188 billion barrels, 9 times the 1944 estimate, and remaining reserves in 1993 were 633 billion barrels, 32 times the 1944 estimates.

I'm well aware of the shortcomings of the assumptions made in the above, but that's not the point. This is what the masses believe, right or wrong.

So you see, Jtabeb, there was actually some subtext behind that 100 years comment. It was basically, Ok, Dave, I acknowledged your stupid f***ing point about how much oil is in the ground that we can't get at. So now that I have acknowledged this irrelevant detail, read the goddamn article and pay attention to what it says about the fact that we can't get at most of what's left at economic extraction costs!!!

I kept the line in the article because I learned that my friend's mind shut down on the mention of anything that related to "running out of oil". He knew the oil was in the ground (albeit unreachable economically) and just wasn't going to process the information in the article rationally unless that point had been acknowledged. So the reason I put that comment there (prominently at the top of the executive summary) was to make sure people like him with that bias didn't "turn off" and tune out. I failed to anticipate the opposite reaction from those of you with the opposite bias, which I share incidentally.

Jtabeb, you had the exact same reaction Dave did, but in reverse. As soon as you saw the comment about 100 years supply still in the ground (irrefutably true, by the way, even if largely irrelevant), you just tuned out. As a result you completely misinterpreted the rest of the article, and levied criticisms about inflation even though I had very clearly addressed that point and others you criticized.

I wonder if you and others would have "gotten it" and not missed so many other points (that most of you seem to have gotten wrong in your criticisms) if that one "offensive statement" had not been there?

Several people seemed to imply that I was "ignoring" the obvious fact that other countries could out-bid the United States if price controls were imposed on oil imports. Well, Duh! If you go back and actually pay attention to what the article says, you'll see that's addressed. The point is that I expect the U.S. may eventually tell oil-rich states "You're going to sell your oil to us, not China, for the price we tell you, or else we're going to kill you dead and take your oil whether you like it or not". The obvious scenario of a "higher bidder" (in economic terms for the oil) is irrelevant. It would take a more formidable military force to stand up to the U.S. and say "No, you're not going to bully them into selling oil to you below market rates. You're going to let them sell it to us if that's what's in their best interest". For the moment, nobody has the firepower to do that.

There's nothing to be gained from arguing any further about the content of the article, except that I will say that after carefully reading all the replies here, I didn't find a single bona-fide criticism that wasn't already addressed by the article. Just lots of misplaced criticisms that evidenced to me that the posters hadn't absorbed the message of the article. Perhaps I did a poor job of expressing my points, but I think the 100-year bias thing is a more likely explanation.

The part of this that was a real learning experience for me was to see how people with a bias that has emotion attached to it react to things and close their minds down. My friend Dave just wasn't going to take anything in the article seriously until it acknowledged the completely irrelevant fact that plenty of oil is in the ground that we can't get to. A whole bunch of people here (whom I've seen demonstrate very strong critical thinking skills in other threads) just couldn't keep an open mind after they were affected in the opposite way by a statement that was intended to defuse the objections of "the other biased audience".

xPat

Thanks XPat for your reply. I agree completely with it. There were a few of us that seemed to actually read the whole article. It was excellent and made me join CM as a paid member. Thanks again
jim

[xPat]

Re: Why Peak Oil will never reach $500/barrel

Thanks XPat for your reply. I agree completely with it. There were a few of us that seemed to actually read the whole article. It was excellent and made me join CM as a paid member. Thanks again
jim

You're welcome Jim!

I look forward to more from the others. If there are substantive errors in the article, I definitely want critical feedback. But honestly, in this case I think it has more to do with reaction to the 100 year thing than anything else.

I learned more from this than I did from all the other feedback I've gotten on other sites combined. It only takes one statement that offends someone to cause them to totally shut down to having an open mind toward the rest of what they read. Big lesson there for me as a writer.

xPat

[xPat]

Re: Why Peak Oil will never reach $500/barrel

A question to Jtabeb and others who found the article to be unappealing:

Suppose it had said this:

Despite the fact that critics argue that well over 100 years' supply of oil still exists underground, practical limitations prevent it from being extracted at economically feasible cost, so the fact it's there is almost irrelevant.

I'm trying to figure out how I could have worded this so as to acknowledge both "arguments" without offending either side, i.e. so that both biases would actually read the article.

I'm not trying to be pedantic here beating a dead horse; I don't care about defending this particular article. Just trying to learn how to write in a "keep everyone engaged" style in the future.

Thanks,
xPat

[jpatter666]

Re: Why Peak Oil will never reach $500/barrel

A question to Jtabeb and others who found the article to be unappealing:

Suppose it had said this:


I'm trying to figure out how I could have worded this so as to acknowledge both "arguments" without offending either side, i.e. so that both biases would actually read the article.

I'm not trying to be pedantic here beating a dead horse; I don't care about defending this particular article. Just trying to learn how to write in a "keep everyone engaged" style in the future.

Thanks,
xPat

Critics argue that well over 100 years supply of oil at present consumption rates still exists underground, although current practical limitations prevent it from being extracted at an economically feasible cost; technological advances will no doubt enable some if not all of this supply to be developed. However, for the purposes of this article let us assume that those advances enable only limited improvements in resource extraction rates.

[jtabeb]

Re: Why Peak Oil will never reach $500/barrel

"Despite the fact that critics argue that well over 100 years' supply of oil still exists underground, practical limitations prevent it from being extracted at economically feasible cost, so the fact it's there is almost irrelevant. "

That's Money! Pure Money! (Like gold ;) ) It would have been an absolute perfect fit.

Again, I am sorry for the seemingly OVERSTATED response to what could be construed as a "small thing". But we all have "triggers". I think when I read the "100 years" comment, my "trigger" went off, and even though I finished reading the article, I'll admit that I was reading to critique, not to comprehend. That fact that this point was the ONLY critique, should say something about the quality of the article and I do have to apologize for "shooting from the hip" first, and then explaining myself later. (And thanks to JP666 for calling me on it, it needed to be said).

[jtabeb]

Re: Why Peak Oil will never reach $500/barrel

Why do I feel like I just failed a Psychological Profile Test? ;)

But seriously, should I eat crow, or humble pie, that's the only question. (BTW, my response below came before reading this. I tend to share you conclusion about the role of "bias", at least how I "poisoned my own well" STS).

As an aside. This was NOTHING compared to something like Anthropogenic Global Warming "Climate Change". If you REALLY wanted to have some fun, do an article on that!

(Disclosure, not a scientist, but critical analysis lends me to conclude that it is just as false as the "Global Cooling" scare of the 1970's). That being said, I don't know, what I don' know.

The quest for knowledge is quite the paradox don't you think? You try to expand your base of knowledge only to discover how much more you don't know. Very humbling.

You could almost say that the quest for knowledge is really "the humbling quest to probe the vastness of our collective ignorance".

[xPat]

Re: Why Peak Oil will never reach $500/barrel

Jtabeb,

No offense taken at all, and no need to apologize. Like I said, I learned more from this than all the other feedback I got combined. Once you say something that pushes someone's buttons, they shift gears. I recognize exactly what you're talking about because I do it myself. I read something objectionable, then from there on I'm reading with the intent of finding further fault.

FWIW, I'm totally on the same page with you guys about the extent of the problem. The point of the article was simply to point out that I think most investors look at this as a supply-demand economics thing, when it's really more of a "the world is screwed and has to change in ways people aren't ready for" kind of event. Sort of like if the Atomic Bomb had just been invented and people were reacting by estimating uranium demand and mining costs. The point is, it's a game-changer and thinking in terms of supply and demand in isolation is self-defeating.

All the best,
xPat

[mliu_01]

Re: Why Peak Oil will never reach $500/barrel

Wait a minute.
I have 4 points. Why dont' you point out what is invalid. I am disspoint at your reply, cause you did not even say a word about why 3 of my 4 points are invalid and directly jump to conclusion and totally attacking my points. Do you(I -- edit) have to agree with you? Otherwise I am dumb and stupid and not worth of posting anything here?

So tell you what I said made you think I should post my opinion here? and tell me why my post isn't a decent discussion?
1. If ET think there are 100 year worth of oil still out there. Them he assume that Chinese will not use more than they are. Do you have any idea how much cars GM is selling in china? So you people know how much they will use in the next 100 years?
2. If USD crash. you think it will not be $500 bucks per barrel? Is this arguement invalid as well?
3. same thing. if we have hyperinfltion, you can find 500per barrel? Gee that is really cheap oil.
4. Since when Govt can print oil just as they print money?

Don't forget, US is pushing chinese to make yuan stronger. That will mean cheaper oil for chinese.


Now tell me which one is invalid. Isn't that article simply assumed the 4 point above? Stop bashing other posters before you found out they are really dumb and stupid as you think. If you are for discussion here, you should simply point stupidity of the logic and reasoning of the post not to point your finger and call other people dumb. Or your are pointing your finger in the mirror.

BTW, I am totally disppointed at your post. Cause you simply have not learned the 101 of discussion. Rule number 1 for site like this is focus on topic and disscussion, not on poster. You go straight to insult poster and leave no words to debat or discuss. Your opionion is really worthless for post like this. If my post are so invalid then why don't educate me first so that I can shut up. It is easy thing to do, right? why don't you do it.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Why Peak Oil will never reach $500/barrel

Why do I feel like I just failed a Psychological Profile Test? ;)

Eh ... you just passed a test, in my view , with your willingness to look at this discussion from various perspectives, even as you were a "partisan participant" yesterday.

Just as individual minds are influenced by powerful non-rational forces, such as we sometimes call emotions, the "id", the "subconscious", the primitive and middle brains, or whatever, similarly the collective consciousness of groups of humans (other herding animals as well) has its own non-rational forces, often manifest in the same mediums of communication (writing, speaking, book, newspaper, journals, radio, TV, web forums, YouTube video, bumper stickers, banners and signs, ...) as are used to convey "sensible" rational discourse.

One of many features of this circumstance is that specific words, specific "facts", specific numbers (for example, stating we have at least 100 years of oil left!) take on multiple meanings.

One can use such a "fact" in a rather obviously accurate statement, while conveying at the same time, with the same words, something perhaps quite outrageous or dangerously wrong. Specific words, facts, events, symbols, colors, memes, images, ... become overloaded with multiple, sometimes conflicting meanings.

In this example, we see that any prominent statement of the form "we have BIG NUMBER of years of oil left" has been misused so often that almost any such phrase in any discussion of energy will almost certainly and instantly polarize the discussion, poison the well. One might as well show up at a Tea Party march with a big swastika flag, or at an NAACP meeting wearing a white sheet. Many (most?) major topics of the day have had so many of their sensible wells poisoned that it because nearly impossible to carry on rational discussion of them in large groups. Those of us who wear tin-foil-hats to sleep and in the shower suspect that this is deliberate and reference the work of such people as Edward Bernays. Bernays did for the collective unconscious what his cousin Freud did for the individual unconscious.

This might be an element of the genius of Eric Janszen and Chris Martenson. Each have found, in their way of Marshalling facts (EJ) or presenting decision tables (CM), a method to circumvent many of the more volatile memes that would threaten to poison discussions of their observations.

For most people, most of the time, just swimming in such murky waters while getting enough smaller fish to eat, but not being food themselves nor drowning nor getting hopelessly lost is an ample life challenge. Some people, likely including many iTulip readers, will be able to "part the waters", clear up some of the murk, guide others through the treacherous waters. Usually we accomplish this in some rather specific and narrow field. Jtabeb can teach others how to fly fast planes in combat and survive. I have taught others how to manage the processor and memory placement of large tasks on monster computers (cpusets.) But such mastery takes years (usually a decade at least) to achieve, and does not transfer to other disciplines. Michael Jordan was a mediocre baseball player at best.

But when some topic (energy, global warming, fascism, communism, capitalism, terror, 9/11, fiat money, debt, ...) becomes sufficiently overloaded with hidden meanings, then the undertow of mass delusion, deception and distraction becomes so strong that well ordered, large scale discussion becomes almost impossible.

xPat -- just beware that 99.7% of the time that specific numbers are stated in some bold summarizing fashion, it is either with the intent (often unconscious) to polarize the discussion, or at least it is taken that way (as in this case, again, often unconsciously)

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Why Peak Oil will never reach $500/barrel

Wait a minute.
I have 4 points. Why dont' you point out what is invalid. I am disspoint at your reply, cause you did not even say a word about why 3 of my 4 points are invalid and directly jump to conclusion and totally attacking my points. Do you have to agree with you? Otherwise I am dumb and stupid and not worth of posting anything here?

For the benefit of others, it appears that mliu is responding here to a post by jpatter666 (it self in response to mliu) which began:

mliu, I suggest you re-read and rethink; most of your comments are invalid and I'm not sure how you ever got those opinions from that posting.

True, mliu, statements of "how many years" of oil we have left depend on how fast we use it. But such statements are a bit of a distraction, in that we will probably never run out, rather just find it increasingly difficult to extract, so use it as an increasingly precious resource.

True, mliu, the price of oil has to be stated in either inflation adjusted dollars or nominal dollars. If the dollar collapses (as jtabeb expects and as many of us consider possible) then the nominal price of oil could someday be $500 per barrel even as the price in 2010 constant dollars is still only perhaps $100 or $200 per barrel (or really cheap at $15 per barrel in some hyperinflation scenario.)

True, the government cannot print oil as it does money.

However, this discussion, for reasons I noted in my previous post last hour, drifted off into a polarized area for a while. In that space, anything you might say has multiple, oftentimes contradictory, meanings.

To have much chance of a positive contribution to such a discussion, one has to find ways to first connect to the truths that each participant is stating, to then restate those truths in "neutral" terms that can be understood in roughly the same way by all parties, and to then present a larger unifying understanding in those neutral terms that each party will find advances their awareness.

That is not easy.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Why Peak Oil will never reach $500/barrel

xPat -- just beware that 99.7% of the time that specific numbers are stated in some bold summarizing fashion, it is either with the intent (often unconscious) to polarize the discussion, or at least it is taken that way (as in this case, again, often unconsciously)

In other words, playing flag football (with a red flag) in a bull's pasture is a dangerous game.