Doomstead

The video is the most clear-headed video saying where things are going.

QuoteNone of this is intended to scare you or turn you into a doomer.  This is all just stuff we need to come to terms with.  The American dream does not exist.  The only reason it existed before was because the U.S. empire was at the peak of it's imperialist power...

Proxy wars and genocide shows America going the way Italy, Germany, and Spain did in the last century beyond any doubt.

It is time for concerned citizens to meet up.

Quote from: K-Dog on May 17, 2024, 10:32 AMThe video is the most clear-headed video saying where things are going.
It is time for concerned citizens to meet up.

That was a quite reasonable, non psycho babble video, making a reasonable point. The presenter had valid points and data (without fact checking it anyway), didn't do the "pull my finger" trick with peak oil or other claims of it being Planet X's fault or whatever the equivalent is nowadays. He did seem to want to assign all consequences to his ideas, and all hope to his solution, and that is always suspect as single problems and single solutions are rarely true.

But his argument was well thought out and reasonable. And I'm not sure it creates doomers more than it might socialists or communists, casting about as it does to dispense with capitalism without discussing the other systems available. The socialists in Europe seem to be doing okay generally speaking, and socialism still allow for richer folks without having the consequences America does as to what to do with the poorer folks.

All of this unfoldindg will certainly be fun to watch, as Social Security continues to devour the federal budget, and interest payments, and the fate of Greece nears, and I'm glad the presenter didn't discredit the entire claim by doing the usual running out of this, running out of that, or some MAGA squealing about migrants or conspiracy praddle that seems to be involved in most of these "shit is bad, will probably get worse and gots to change".

 

The quasi-socialist states of Europe have the same problems as the FSoA, with the most successful of them in Scandinavia having until recently relatively small and racially homogenous populations.  Norway also has been the beneficiary of North Sea oil.  I don't see the Scandinavian Dream lasting any longer than the Amerikan dream will though.

I don't think any political system can manage economic shrinkage, which is why it progresses to collapse.  It's also why proposing one is a hornet's nest of problems, landmines and potholes.  With shrinkage you have 3 ways to manage it.

1-  Everyone takes an equal hit

2-  One group takes a big hit the other a small hit

3-  One group is wped out of existence, the other's improves.

This all falls under the category of, "You can please some of the people all the time, all the people some of the time but you can never please all the people all the time."  As economics spin down, more and more people fall off the economic cliff until you reach critical mass and you have political lockup.  In a Parliamentary system, no goverment party can gain a majority and coalitions cannot be formed.  In 2 patyr systems, you have polarizaton.  Inability to govern effectively leads to social instability leads to radicalization and violence.  Ultimately, you get anarchy.

I don't see much hope for a peaceful way out of our economic problems, because even if Green Hydrogen could be used to substitute, we're going to have a shrinking amount of per capita available energy until such time as we have a significant die off of the population.  That won't happen without violence.

So, if you find violence entertaining, it will definitely be that.  It is entertaining, as the spectators at  the Colisseum found in Rome and as we find watching Superhero movies.  Until it happens to you.  Then it's not entertaining, it's an existential crisis.  Which if you survive will be an entertaining story to tell, if not you'll be dead.

RE

QuoteI don't see much hope for a peaceful way out of our economic problems, because even if Green Hydrogen could be used to substitute, we're going to have a shrinking amount of per capita available energy until such time as we have a significant die off of the population.  That won't happen without violence.
RE

Reference to US per capita energy use (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-use?tab=chart&country=~USA) use since 1965. We've had shrinking per capita energy use here in the US since 1979.

So 45 years of this thing happening, how more farther does the per capita current Kwh or a quantity of additional years/decades before the violence kicks off? And I don't mean run of the mill Watts riots or Rodney King or George Floyd riots and BLM stuff,more like large scale Hooverville based violence, entire towns being taken over so civilians can loot Walmarts and grocery stores for food, the stuff imagined by the survivalist types.

New Orleans after Katrina, that scale, but lasting longer, multiple cities, National Guard needing rolled out to stop the violence, etc etc. 60,000 Kwh/person? 40,000? 20,000? 5 years? 20?

Quote from: TDoS on May 17, 2024, 08:41 PMReference to US per capita energy use (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-use?tab=chart&country=~USA) use since 1965. We've had shrinking per capita energy use here in the US since 1979.

So 45 years of this thing happening, how more farther does the per capita current Kwh or a quantity of additional years/decades before the violence kicks off? And I don't mean run of the mill Watts riots or Rodney King or George Floyd riots and BLM stuff,more like large scale Hooverville based violence, entire towns being taken over so civilians can loot Walmarts and grocery stores for food, the stuff imagined by the survivalist types.

New Orleans after Katrina, that scale, but lasting longer, multiple cities, National Guard needing rolled out to stop the violence, etc etc. 60,000 Kwh/person? 40,000? 20,000? 5 years? 20?

To answer that question, if you had the information of the per capita energy use of the people living in Gaza prior to the growth of Hamas, or that of the Houthis in Yemen, or that of the ethnic Russians in the Donbass region of Ukraine prior to their break from the Ukrainian goobermint and  their call to Vlad the Impaler for help, you might be able to work it out mathematically.

You would also need to know the current per capita energy use of the lowest ~20% of the population of the FSoA today versus what it was 40 years ago, then calculate the estimated rate of change (aka the 2nd derivative) downward of that use.  Then all you need to do is extrapolate the curve forward and see when it becomes as low here as it was in Ukraine when the grand scale violence broke out and you would have your answer.

It is at that point where you have an existential crisis of a significant enough segment of the population that they have nothing left to lose.  If they do nothing they will die slowly, so they resort to violence when peaceful appeals for enough help to stay in the survival zone fail.    They may die quicker, or they may force enough downward pressure on the haves to give up something so they can survive.

So, since you are the one who knows where to find information like per capita energy use for different places and demographic subsets, I set you the task of finding out the relevant information, andthen I'll be happy to give you an educated guess.  Without such information it's just a WAG.

You also have the problem of discontinuity in the 2nd derivative, points at which the rate of change itself changes significantly.  In this case that would be something like a sudden increase in price of oil or NG due to a sudden decrease in its availability.  Perhaps the Russians decide to halt all export of energy to Europe.  Or the Iranians sabotage Saudi production using their Houthi proxies.  Or Chinese hackers bring down the grid in retaliation for trade protectionism.  Any number of scenarios couuld cause a discontinuity and rapid descent to large scale violence.  Extrapolating the smooth curve forward just gives you the best case scenario.

Without good data, I can't make an educated guess.  It would be like going to the track to bet on the ponies without studying the Racing Form to see prior results for the horses in given track conditions.  You're just shooting craps.  Or playing blackjack without counting the cards as they come out.  Only way to gamble and win more often than you lose is if you hve enough information to improve the  odds of picking the right answer.  I don't shoot craps at the casino.  I play blackjack, and I count.  I win more than I lose.  Or I did back in my college days anyhow.

RE

I'll make an addendum to my last post.  There's a psychological factor to consider.

In the last few generations, the population of the FSoA has never been as poor as the poorest in Gaza or Ukraine.  We haven't had existential level poverty here since the Great Depression, which ended with WWII.

In the following decades there was growth in per capita energy use and a better standard of living for all except for one segment left out, the black population.  They broke out in mass protest, civil disobedience and violence in the 60s.  It was resolved through socialization with the Great Society program of Lyndon Johnson.  Then everone continued upward until the 80s, when stagnation set in.  Since then, we have had and ever widening gap between the haves and the have nots.

We may not need to drop all the way to existential crisis for bigger levels of violence, the difference between the way the rich live and the poor do and the diminished expectations of achieving the "Amerikan Dream" may be enough to set it off while people still have enough to eat to survive.

However, food isn't the only  essential for survival, shelter is also.  The increasing amount of Homelessness right now is a bigger threat than food availability is.  As this class of people grows and becomes more visible, it will be harder to control with sweeps of tent cities and mass shelters and concentration camps.  That is probably where the violence will break out first.

RE

Quote from: RESo, since you are the one who knows where to find information like per capita energy use for different places and demographic subsets, I set you the task of finding out the relevant information, andthen I'll be happy to give you an educated guess.  Without such information it's just a WAG.

We are discussing doomer scenarios....WAGs are all there is. Peak oilers have proven it with oil for a century. Duncan has already demonstrated net energy per capita at the global level doesn't work, and did it in the last century. Supposing that the idea has validity is itself the fault, not a better calculation from a less experienced and less educated amateur than the PhD scientist who originated it.

Might the idea be involved in doomer hopes and dreams? Sure. Just as peak oil might. Or wars, pandemics, rogue states with nukes, according to the old Diner PlanetX and Yellowstone going BOOM were quite interesting as well.

WAGs are part and parcel of the doomosphere and your entire doomer career...why are you objecting to it this late in the game?

Quote from: REWithout good data, I can't make an educated guess.

Of course without good data you, and I, and everyone else, can make an educated guess. The guesses are simply better informed with first good data, and then more data and then more good data. It is why they are called "guesses".

Some knew that peak oil was a crock from the same data that the suckers who fell for it used. Was it because they had any better data? Or were better educated in the use of the same data?

So no, I don't automatically buy the "better data" angle, if only because with the same data some people have what it takes to generate the right answer, and some don't.

Quote from: REI play blackjack, and I count.  I win more than I lose.  Or I did back in my college days anyhow.
RE

Card counting operates in a system with quite limited outcomes. Interesting that you presume you card counting changes an already discredited idea into a better one if you just had more or better data. 

Quote from: RE on May 18, 2024, 04:03 AMIn the last few generations, the population of the FSoA has never been as poor as the poorest in Gaza or Ukraine.  We haven't had existential level poverty here since the Great Depression, which ended with WWII.

Okay. Sounds reasonable.

Quote from: REThen everone continued upward until the 80s, when stagnation set in.  Since then, we have had and ever widening gap between the haves and the have nots.

I recognize that the video claimed that things began to change during Ronny's tenure, but it was generally referred to as the Go Go 80's, as the actual stagflation that Ronny got credit for ending, rightly or wrongly, happened late 70's early 80's and Jimmy seemed to get the blame for. As compared to Ronny, who got the credit, rightly or wrongly, for "curing" it.

So, claiming a stagflation during the Go Go 80's requires more context. Certainly inflation had dampened down, as economic growth was ramping up. Stagflation is the opposite of both at the same time, if I understand the definition correctly.

Quote from: REThe increasing amount of Homelessness right now is a bigger threat than food availability is.  As this class of people grows and becomes more visible, it will be harder to control with sweeps of tent cities and mass shelters and concentration camps.  That is probably where the violence will break out first.
RE

Well, homelessness is increasing. And where I live, is already quite visible. The wife and I went to a Cracker Barrel last night, which sits by a mass transit bus stop. There was an encampment of some sort, at least a dozen people, a few large tents, set up in a large grassy area nearby. It hadn't been there a couple months ago the last time we went there.

And we are also seeing quite an influx of Central/South Americans showing up on all street corners with sqeejees and bottles of soapy water. Some are selling flowers or bags of chips. I don't imagine that gang has made it to Anchorage yet.

I don't think I buy the correlation of increasing homelessness and increasing threat level. Irritation level? Sure. Wishing for less from regular citizens and general irritation? Sure. But Hooverville's don't seem to be quite the thing they once were. Yet.

Quote from: TDoS on May 17, 2024, 08:41 PM

QuoteI don't see much hope for a peaceful way out of our economic problems, because even if Green Hydrogen could be used to substitute, we're going to have a shrinking amount of per capita available energy until such time as we have a significant die off of the population.  That won't happen without violence.
RE

Reference to US per capita energy use (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-use?tab=chart&country=~USA) use since 1965. We've had shrinking per capita energy use here in the US since 1979.

So 45 years of this thing happening, how more farther does the per capita current Kwh or a quantity of additional years/decades before the violence kicks off?

That graph is interesting but it does not mean much.  It would be interesting to correlate economic indicators and gas prices with the curve. 

But why does it not mean much?

Half of this energy use, or a huge part of it is elective.  In a city, more than half of all energy use is elective if you have decent public transportation.  Life does not depend on a visit to a mall, though without such useless activities American life sucks bad.  There is nothing to do but be by yourself if you are not an energy hog.

The exact measure of excess us is not the issue, but there is a level below which energy use is necessary and not elective.  Enough gas or electricity to cook, or get to a job if you have one.  That is the bitch line.  The amount of energy it actually takes to keep the show going.  That number could be worked out with enough study and effort.  The number would vary by location but the point is, the number exists.  So somewhere above that line, but close to it, things will go to shit.  Depending on the stupidity of the status-quo, collapse could come sooner. 

Above the line dissidents are violently suppressed but life goes on.  Below the line the FSOA becomes what Berlin was when the Soviet Army rolled in.  Ironic for sure.  Society does not work with energy use below this line, nothing works there is no power.  There is no longer enough power to turn the wheels of necessity.  40,0000kWh in the lower 48?  Backlash in the social knots that hold things together, already loose, snap tight and what looks like George Floyd riots spread, and then nothing stops the riots as the knots break.

QuoteWe may not need to drop all the way to existential crisis for bigger levels of violence, the difference between the way the rich live and the poor do and the diminished expectations of achieving the "Amerikan Dream" may be enough to set it off while people still have enough to eat to survive.

I agree, and then those who still had enough to eat can watch dominoes fall right up to their front door.

The double domino effect kicks in at the end.

Quote from: TDoS on May 18, 2024, 07:14 AMWe are discussing doomer scenarios....WAGs are all there is.

Without any data I'm not going to set a timeline.  I am not and never have been a "Peak Oiler".  My only connection to PO is my participation on the forum as Rogue Economist.  My interest in economic collapse crossed over with their interest in the decreasing per capita energy consumption.

In terms of "failure", the fact timelines aren't spot on isn't failure, just means all the data wasn't accounted for and/or there have been discontinuties affecting the rate of change.  One such discontinuity was tight oil production.  Rather than failing, most of what was predicted is coming true, though it's mostly happening in South and Central America right now, which is why they are running up here in ever increasing numbers.

I never said anything about stagflation, I mentioned stagnation, which was in reference to wages and income.  It began in the 80s, more or less.  Who was POTUS is irrelevant.  I also don't say card counting changes anything, it's just an analogy.  Of course it's just a game and there are fewer variables so it's easier to make predictions.  Far as outcomes are concerned, even though the variables are many, the outcomes are limited.  Thing could get better slowly or quickly; or they could get worse slowly or quickly.  I'll discount the first 2 choices as likely.  Not enough data to make book on the other two.

RE

Quote from: TDoS on May 18, 2024, 07:14 AMSome knew that peak oil was a crock from the same data that the suckers who fell for it used. Was it because

I am not going to argue this, but I will express my annoyance.

Hubbert described a model which described how oil would deplete.  Given the data he used the model was 100% correct.  Does his model describe actual reality? If you plug in real world data it does.  Data which Hubbert did not have.

Math models often can be poor in predicting exactly what will happen because math models are always an abstraction of reality.  Typically valid over a narrow linear range.  Models properly built do express the form real world events will take.  But math models are no better than the data that is used.  Garbage in gives garbage out, and the model has to be correctly built to begin with.

Hubbert gave his talk and drew his graph.

The graph is only output from his peak oil model given knowledge of oil deposits at the time.  The graph is not the model itself.  Graphs only show results and Hubbert's graph is correct given the data he had.

We have better data then Hubbert did fifty years ago.  Now we know shit will start hitting the fan hard in ten years.  In ten years all global fossil fuel liquids will be in sharp decline.

On the bright side.  Oil tankers that will move Antarctic oil up across the roaring forties will be built strong enough to survive the new hurricanes which global heating shall bring.  There is another math model that describes that.

Quote from: RE on May 18, 2024, 09:47 AM

Quote from: TDoS on May 18, 2024, 07:14 AMWe are discussing doomer scenarios....WAGs are all there is.

I am not and never have been a "Peak Oiler".
RE

Quote from: K-Dog on May 18, 2024, 09:24 AMThat graph is interesting but it does not mean much.

I agree. And the point I thought I made, other than using it as information to demonstrate that it has been going on a long time, Richard Duncan claimed it as a world ending event...and it didn't work out as planned.

Quote from: K-DogIt would be interesting to correlate economic indicators and gas prices with the curve. 

It would. And I would bet someone like Gail Tverberg has already done it, and probably used it to predict the end times herself, somewhere between her peak oil claims going sideways in 2008 and within 10 years of that as she focused more on energy, as her discredited oil claims had already dinged her credibility.

Quote from: K-DogHalf of this energy use, or a huge part of it is elective.

Indeed. And then there is the efficiency of a fixed amount of energy use, allowing more to be done with the same, or even less, with increases in it. Part of the reason why a global peak in 1979 didn't bother folks anymore than the recent one in 2018. Folks use less, and use it more efficiently.

Quote from: K-DogThat is the bitch line.  The amount of energy it actually takes to keep the show going.  That number could be worked out with enough study and effort.  The number would vary by location but the point is, the number exists.  So somewhere above that line, but close to it, things will go to shit.  Depending on the stupidity of the status-quo, collapse could come sooner.

Well, some have certainly tried to work it out. And I would agree that it seems likely someone could, but those who have tried to date don't appear to have a handle on it quite yet.

Quote from: RE on May 18, 2024, 09:47 AM

Quote from: TDoS on May 18, 2024, 07:14 AMWe are discussing doomer scenarios....WAGs are all there is.

Without any data I'm not going to set a timeline.  I am not and never have been a "Peak Oiler".

Well good for you then. The amount of egg on face those folks have accumulated would sink the Titanic at this point. Best to stay as far away as possible from that one.

Quote from: REIn terms of "failure", the fact timelines aren't spot on isn't failure, just means all the data wasn't accounted for and/or there have been discontinuties affecting the rate of change.

Okay...so when someone calls a time, and a volume, and gets it wrong it isn't failure. Would you volunteer that it is just incompetence, making a guess they knew was a WAG but pretending it time and volume certain? And then when the WAG didn't work out, and they did it again, with the same result, what would that be? Just stupid as a stump?

Quote from: REOne such discontinuity was tight oil production.  Rather than failing, most of what was predicted is coming true, though it's mostly happening in South and Central America right now, which is why they are running up here in ever increasing numbers.

So when tight oil production began being developed from shales in northern Pennsylvania between 1880-1900 (might have been in the 1860-1880 timeframe, it has been awhile since I checked my library on this one), that was a discontinuity? Strikes me that folks that knew some geology, like at least geologically trained peak oilers, certainly can't make that claim with a straight face. And if your point is BOY are they lousy at doing some basic research in historical geology about when tight oil from shale began development, I couldn't deny it. Footnote provided on request of course, from the mid-90s no less. So any peak oilers after that timeframe can't claim to be uninformed on this fact.

Quote from: REWho was POTUS is irrelevant.

The video seemed to take a different angle. Would you say his claim was materially wrong? He had quite a bit of causality assigned to Reagan there.

Quote from: K-Dog on May 18, 2024, 10:03 AM

Quote from: TDoS on May 18, 2024, 07:14 AMSome knew that peak oil was a crock from the same data that the suckers who fell for it used. Was it because

I am not going to argue this, but I will express my annoyance.

I understand. We discussed this before. I provided reasonably detailed research, facts, quotes, historical and temporally correct references and whatnot explaining my points rather than just being annoyed. If you recall any of the information I provided and can contradict it with reasonable detailed research, facts, quotes, historical or temporal mistakes I made, I would greatly appreciate it if you pointed it out. And I will then to recalculate my statements and analysis incorporating this new research, facts, etc etc.

Quote from: K-DogHubbert described a model which described how oil would deplete.  Given the data he used the model was 100% correct. Hubbert gave his talk and drew his graph.

He sure did. Here is his quote talking about the US peak.

Quote from: M. King HubbertWhile we do not know exactly how much oil remains undiscovered, we do know that it is a limited supply...Furthermore, the easy discoveries have already been and only the difficult ones remain.

It is certain that the production of oil will reach one or more peaks and finally decline.

The time of this decline in the US is somewhat uncertain, yet it seems doubtful that it can be postponed any later than 1950.

There you go. Hubbert declaring US peak oil sure looks to be a-coming. How do you like the "one or more peaks" part? Pre-cognitive. The guy who came up with the peak concept folks thought meant "just A peak" knew 80 years before it happened in 2018 that just in the 21st century alone the world could have 6 claimed or occurred peak oils!

Quote from: TDoS on May 18, 2024, 08:22 PM

Quote from: RE on May 18, 2024, 09:47 AM

Quote from: TDoS on May 18, 2024, 07:14 AMWe are discussing doomer scenarios....WAGs are all there is.

Without any data I'm not going to set a timeline.  I am not and never have been a "Peak Oiler".

Well good for you then. The amount of egg on face those folks have accumulated would sink the Titanic at this point. Best to stay as far away as possible from that one.

Eh, you see it as more important than I do.  To me, the concept of PO, that decline would be tied to reaching a peak in oil consumption is what is relevant, not how perfect the predictions were of the date it would be reached.  We already agree (I think) that if you don't have all the data you won't get a perfect prediction.  As more and better data comes in, the results get more accurate, so there isn't too much fundamentally wrong with the model.  The main thing wrong I see is it discounts too much the effect of energy substitution.  It's not complete substitution, but it's enough to slow things down.

Quote

Quote from: REIn terms of "failure", the fact timelines aren't spot on isn't failure, just means all the data wasn't accounted for and/or there have been discontinuties affecting the rate of change.

Okay...so when someone calls a time, and a volume, and gets it wrong it isn't failure. Would you volunteer that it is just incompetence, making a guess they knew was a WAG but pretending it time and volume certain? And then when the WAG didn't work out, and they did it again, with the same result, what would that be? Just stupid as a stump?

I would volunteer that making absolute claims for anything in the future is a mistake, which I try not to make.  When you talk about future events, you should always speak in terms of probabilities.  Nothing is written in stone.  However, when you start talking about future events, people try to pin you down for a date, as you have been doing with me.  In order to impress upon people the gravity of the situation, doomers often fall into the trap of pitching out dates.  Dr. McStinksion is a great example of that.  If you want foolish, that's where you find it, because not only his timeline was incredibly wrong, his model of positive feedback loops has practically zero basis in scientific research to date, and any data he has is pulled out of his ass. That's where you find incompetence and egg meets face disease.

Quote

Quote from: REOne such discontinuity was tight oil production.  Rather than failing, most of what was predicted is coming true, though it's mostly happening in South and Central America right now, which is why they are running up here in ever increasing numbers.

So when tight oil production began being developed from shales in northern Pennsylvania between 1880-1900 (might have been in the 1860-1880 timeframe, it has been awhile since I checked my library on this one), that was a discontinuity? Strikes me that folks that knew some geology, like at least geologically trained peak oilers, certainly can't make that claim with a straight face. And if your point is BOY are they lousy at doing some basic research in historical geology about when tight oil from shale began development, I couldn't deny it. Footnote provided on request of course, from the mid-90s no less. So any peak oilers after that timeframe can't claim to be uninformed on this fact.

Tight oil was identified early on, and I recall you pointing out in the past that fracking isn't really new either.  However, it wasn't pursued at scale until quite late in the game, so its contribution to the total mix was insignificant until the last decade or two.  You can date Marcellus, Eagle Ford and all the formations properly for us.

Quote

Quote from: REWho was POTUS is irrelevant.

The video seemed to take a different angle. Would you say his claim was materially wrong? He had quite a bit of causality assigned to Reagan there.

I didn't watch that video.  I don't really care which jackass was in the Oval Office or which party was running the show.  They're all idiots.  Carter was slightly less of an idiot, but he was ineffectual.

RE

Quote from: RE

Quote from: TDos

Quote from: RE on May 19, 2024, 12:36 AMWithout any data I'm not going to set a timeline.  I am not and never have been a "Peak Oiler".

Well good for you then. The amount of egg on face those folks have accumulated would sink the Titanic at this point. Best to stay as far away as possible from that one.

Eh, you see it as more important than I do.

I don't see it as important at all, in the sense of volumes and a maximum somewhere along the way. Interesting technically, but peak oil at the end of the day is about the economics of its use, not the absolute volume at some point in time. I just happen to be well informed on this particular technical topic.

Quote from: REWe already agree (I think) that if you don't have all the data you won't get a perfect prediction.

I might venture there are no perfect predictions outside of mathematics, because it is designed that way. Hubbert's math was perfect on the theoretical side in this regard. And because of the data issue you mention, peak oil will only be known in hindsight. A minimum of 15 years of hindsight, because we DO have data that at the global level, old peaks can be reversed that far away in time. At the regional level, the time span is longer. US states for example have repeaked 80 years after the last one, and the US obviously sets the standard for nations at around half a century. 

Quote from: REI would volunteer that making absolute claims for anything in the future is a mistake, which I try not to make. 

You have seemed to be more careful on some specific claims in the future since the 2008 time frame, but I would argue that claims in the future are always made, at all levels, with or without data, by damn near everyone, every organization, etc etc. People need to figure out if they have money in the bank to pay rent at the end of the month, companies need to have a plan for payroll the next 6 months, governments have to guess at tax receipts, etc etc. So sure...absolute claims pin folks down, they can't get them right, but it still must be done, even if it is a binary solution set. "If that invoice gets paid and clears the bank before the end of the month, I can pay rent, otherwise, I can't." 

Quote from: REWhen you talk about future events, you should always speak in terms of probabilities. 

But of course. But folks don't very often do they? I know oil and gas projections from top flight experts that do this, by smart people who can. But most future events never include probability density functions propagating out into the future. Peak oilers were never smart enough to figure this out. Maybe they hedged on occasion with "give or take a few years" but that isn't a probability hedge, it is just a range without probabilities assigned.

Quote from: REIn order to impress upon people the gravity of the situation, doomers often fall into the trap of pitching out dates.  Dr. McStinksion is a great example of that.

Of course. Snake oil salesmen don't want you to think before reaching into your wallet and just handing them the money/clicks/subscriptions.

Guy was a joke dating back to his peak oil claims in 2008. And many peak oil talking heads have risen to the occasional over the years to be just like Guy.

Quote from: RE

Quote from: TDoS

Quote from: K-DogOne such discontinuity was tight oil production.  Rather than failing, most of what was predicted is coming true, though it's mostly happening in South and Central America right now, which is why they are running up here in ever increasing numbers.

So when tight oil production began being developed from shales in northern Pennsylvania between 1880-1900 (might have been in the 1860-1880 timeframe, it has been awhile since I checked my library on this one), that was a discontinuity? Strikes me that folks that knew some geology, like at least geologically trained peak oilers, certainly can't make that claim with a straight face. And if your point is BOY are they lousy at doing some basic research in historical geology about when tight oil from shale began development, I couldn't deny it. Footnote provided on request of course, from the mid-90s no less. So any peak oilers after that timeframe can't claim to be uninformed on this fact.

Tight oil was identified early on, and I recall you pointing out in the past that fracking isn't really new either.  However, it wasn't pursued at scale until quite late in the game, so its contribution to the total mix was insignificant until the last decade or two.  You can date Marcellus, Eagle Ford and all the formations properly for us.

Everything is relative. When natural gas from Devonian shale was lighting up Fredonia NY starting around 1825, it was ALL the production there was. The Mid-Ohio valley oil production was the Middle East of the world, late 1800's. Producing oil sourced from and contained within shales. Sure...not much by todays volumes....but in the time it was happening? The Middle East of the world. 

Quote from: TDoS on May 19, 2024, 07:33 AMI don't see it as important at all

Your actions speak otherwise.  It's basically the only thing you care about writing on these pages, and you spend almost as much time at it as I do.

QuotePeak oilers were never smart enough to figure this out.

You just can't help yourself insulting people, can you?  Calling people stupid just makes you look petty and stupid.

Since you didn't name a specific person, I'll keep your cooler time short and I won't delete the post. 2 days.

RE

Quote from: RE on May 19, 2024, 08:40 AMYou just can't help yourself insulting people, can you?  Calling people stupid just makes you look petty and stupid.

Since you didn't name a specific person, I'll keep your cooler time short and I won't delete the post. 2 days.

RE

On your return, before you bring up the fact I just called all politicians idiots and recently called the writer and editors of that fusion story about the tokamak producing record energy dimwits, there's a difference.  I'm Admin.  ;D   It's the perogative of a tyrant to be petty and stupid.

Admin.  Power of God on a forum.  8)

RE

TDOS is in the cooler?  Fine then, I can make a claim about Peak Oil without the stench of denial blowing over it within the hour.

Peak Oil is real.  TDOS forgets I bought the M. K. Hubbert biography, but there is little point in arguing incorrect facts with someone who denies reality, and takes things out of context.

Nobody seems to have noticed that I said there will be shortages of all fossil liquids in ten years.  TDOS was too busy equating dropping a stick of dynamite down an oil well as the same thing as hydraulic fracking using custom liquids and equipment which won't be invented for a hundred years to notice.

Actually, the truth is TDOS saw my claim clearly.  It was in bold.  It is deliberately ignored.

Did TDOS say to himself Oh Shit, Looks like the Diner managed to acquire some proprietary oil company data?  If so he is correct. 

The Diner managed to get a report prepared by the same people oil companies pay money to when they need the info.

In ten years production will not meet demand.  And no amount of cracking rock is going to change that fact.

It totally sucks that after taking the trouble to build a website to discuss these facts.  The Diner is shadow banned and attacked by lackeys of the American Deep state.

Because inquiring nurds want to know!

Quote from: K-Dog on May 19, 2024, 11:10 AMTDOS is in the cooler?  Fine then, I can make a claim about Peak Oil without the stench of denial blowing over it within the hour.

Peak Oil is real.  TDOS forgets I bought the M. K. Hubbert biography, but there is little point in arguing incorrect facts with someone who denies reality, and takes things out of context.

Yah, besides that he's fond of using half-truths to validate the claim fracking technology has beeen around since the 1800s.  In order to be really effective, fracking needs to be combined with horizontal drilling (https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/horizontal-drilling) to be really effective in accessing oil trapped in non-permeable rock.

Horizontal drilling has been around since 1950s. Recent advances in equipment and in hydraulic fracturing techniques allowed the production of natural gas from previously inaccessible sources such as shale formations (Robbins, 2013). This new and significant increase in shale gas production opened novel research areas for process systems engineering (PSE) community, and it, in turn, benefited from PSE contributions (e.g., Tavallali et al., 2014; Cafaro and Grossmann, 2016; Drouven and Grossmann, 2016; Gao and You, 2017). For example, Cafaro and Grossmann (2016) presents a continuous-time nonlinear programming model and a multi-period mixed-integer programming model to solve refracturing planning problem for horizontal shale gas wells. The models determine which wells to refracture, and the frequency of refracturing and its schedule.

The equipment used for drilling in the 1800s was basically the same as what was used to drill a well for water.  The first wells they hir were basically accidental, and they blew out under so much pressure from NG they fracked themselves.  Drop some dynamite down the hole to frack some more.

While there was plenty of oil around in reservoirs that didn't need to be drilled horizontally and fracked at different strata, few bothered doing it because it's more expensive.  The method didn't come into wide use until conventional oil reserves started running thin and Tdos and his buddies went to North Dakota to frack the living shit out of the Bakken (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Dakota_oil_boom) formation.

The North Dakota oil boom was the period of rapidly expanding oil extraction from the Bakken Formation in the state of North Dakota that lasted from the discovery of Parshall Oil Field in 2006, and peaked in 2012,[1][2] but with substantially less growth noted since 2015 due to a global decline in oil prices.[3]

The oil boom was largely due to the successful use of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, which made unconventional tight oil deposits recoverable.[4] Contributing to the boom was a push to commence drilling and production on oil and gas leases before the expiration of their primary term, commonly three to five years, at which time the leases would terminate unless a producing well was drilled on the lease. But once production was established, the leases continued as long as oil and gas were continually produced.

The boom created new jobs and economic growth in tandem with long-lasting negative effects, such as environmental degredation, pollution, infrastructure collapse, and an increased rate of sexual assault and other violent crime perpetrated by workers living in the area's "man camps" against Indigenous women and children in neighboring reservations.

This biz took off in 2006, right when Peak Oil interest began growing in the blogosphere, and has been used ever since by Tdos as the evidence that Peak Oil is wrong, there's plenty of oil out there to be fracked, so stop the doom talk already, OK? lol.

As it turns out, the wells depleted rather rapidly, the massive amount of debt to do it went underwater when prices dropped back down, and since then the oil companies have been a lot more conservative in the fracking adventures.  Now, the debt and investment is flowing toward the Green Energy Hopium crowd, which is why we get this non-stop parade of articles about new Batt tech, Fuel Cells, Hydrogen and Fusion.  They know fracking isn't a solution, so they're going balls to the wall with "clean renewable" energy.

Despite this fairly obvious turn of events, Tdos has been trolling websites so long claiming Peak Oil was bogus and everyone who made predictions were idiots that he just can't let go of it and move on.  What he should be doing now is debunking all the bullshit claims about Fusion power and Hydrogen substituting for FFs, that is the current meme, not Peak Oil.  That's ancient history.

From where I sit, the Renewables Hopium cohort has done a surprisingly good job of building Solar & Wind capacity as well as LDES to support that when the sun don't shine and the wing don't blow.  Despite this, there's still no way alternative energy can fully replace FFs at the current leveel of per capita consumption in 10 years.  So we are likely to take a significant hit at that time, if not before since the monetary system is seriously on the rocks and a more proximal problem.  Latest there is the Chinese have accelerated their dumping of USTs and the BRICS are closer to issuing a distributed currency based on blockchain technology.

So anyhow, I gave him another brief trip to the cooler because yet another trip down memory lane on the subject of Peak Oil remains tiresome, and basically irrelevant at this point.  Everybody Knows oil can't cover the energy demands projected for the decade to come.  In all likelihood, the demand won't be there, it will be destroyed first.  Growth numbers predicted for many if not all countries won't be met.

The 3rd Quarter of 2024 is a recent date I went out on a limb to predict for recession.  I felt I had enough data last year to make that call.  I could be wrong of course, but 3rd quarter begins at the end of June, so we'll see if we start heading south sooner rather than later.

RE

QuoteThe Renewables Hopium cohort has done a surprisingly good job of building Solar & Wind capacity as well as LDES to support that when the sun don't shine and the wing don't blow.  Despite this, there's still no way alternative energy can fully replace FFs at the current leveel of per capita consumption in 10 years.

If they have been doing such a good job why are we using more fossil fuel now then when the Hopium renewable dance to keep everything the same started?

Quote from: K-Dog on May 20, 2024, 08:56 AM

QuoteThe Renewables Hopium cohort has done a surprisingly good job of building Solar & Wind capacity as well as LDES to support that when the sun don't shine and the wing don't blow.  Despite this, there's still no way alternative energy can fully replace FFs at the current leveel of per capita consumption in 10 years.

If they have been doing such a good job why are we using more fossil fuel now then when the Hopium renewable dance to keep everything the same started?

Because demand increases faster than they can build alternative energy.

RE

Quote from: RE on May 20, 2024, 10:14 AM

Quote from: K-Dog on May 20, 2024, 08:56 AM

QuoteThe Renewables Hopium cohort has done a surprisingly good job of building Solar & Wind capacity as well as LDES to support that when the sun don't shine and the wing don't blow.  Despite this, there's still no way alternative energy can fully replace FFs at the current leveel of per capita consumption in 10 years.

If they have been doing such a good job why are we using more fossil fuel now then when the Hopium renewable dance to keep everything the same started?

Because demand increases faster than they can build alternative energy.

RE

All serious students of Jevon's paradox KNOW that it is futile to pursue alternative energy without restricting conventional energy use.  The relationship to Jevon's may not seem obvious, but a dynamic analysis of what happens as alternative energy is added to the mix shows there is a clear relationship which mimics Jevon's efficiency gain if the introduction of new energy is not balanced by removal of old energy.  Total energy use can only increase.  It is in the math.

But this being America, we don't do math.  We prefer to die.

Quote from: RE on May 19, 2024, 08:40 AM

Quote from: TDoS on May 19, 2024, 07:33 AMI don't see it as important at all

Your actions speak otherwise.  It's basically the only thing you care about writing on these pages, and you spend almost as much time at it as I do.

As I've mentioned before, you don't have a clue why I am here.  In the context of "why", my actions speak perfectly.

Quote from: K-Dog on May 19, 2024, 11:10 AMTDOS is in the cooler?  Fine then, I can make a claim about Peak Oil without the stench of denial blowing over it within the hour.

I note that you missed the part where I already mentioned peak oil is real.

Are you aware that you are generally repeating points previously dispatched with quotes, references, timelines and history, evidence etc etc? Or do they not count because they are vanished by someone/organization, and as we are a bunch of geriatrics around here, we don't remember things as well as we used to?

I give credit where credit is do. Hubbert certainly declared peak oils. They just weren't perfect, unless now you wish to defend his 1950 peak claim as such? You did KNOW about his 1950 US peak oil claim didn't you?

Quote from: K-Dog on May 19, 2024, 11:10 AMPeak Oil is real.  TDOS forgets I bought the M. K. Hubbert biography, but there is little point in arguing incorrect facts with someone who denies reality, and takes things out of context.

Hubbert's 1950 peak oil claim comes from the biography written by Mason Inman. So you had the biography, FORGOT he claimed peak oil in the US in 1950 and claim it is ME who had incorrect facts?

So..back in white is black and black is white land?

Quote from: TDoS on May 21, 2024, 05:04 PM

Quote from: RE on May 19, 2024, 08:40 AM

Quote from: TDoS on May 19, 2024, 07:33 AMI don't see it as important at all

Your actions speak otherwise.  It's basically the only thing you care about writing on these pages, and you spend almost as much time at it as I do.

As I've mentioned before, you don't have a clue why I am here.  In the context of "why", my actions speak perfectly.

Don't need clues.  The sheer volume demonstrates it in any context.  Why is irrelevant.

RE

Quote from: RE on May 19, 2024, 04:57 PMYah, besides that he's fond of using half-truths to validate the claim fracking technology has beeen around since the 1800s.

Oh what nonsense. Half truths indeed, are you really at the point where you can't even represent what I've written here?

I provided a year for when modern hydraulic fracturing began. It wasn't in the 1800's. I also mentioned when hydrostatic shock showed up...that was in the 1800's. So who doesn't know the difference between the two of those? A clue...it ain't me!

You can't even remember when you were taking bets on Toyota going bankrupt back in 2008, apparently your memory isn't even able to go back to the last couple of hidden posts you now pretend don't exist so you can misrepresent what I said in them.

Quote from: REIn order to be really effective, fracking needs to be combined with horizontal drilling (https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/horizontal-drilling) to be really effective in accessing oil trapped in non-permeable rock.

Oh boy. Shale is permeable. Just not very. NON-permeable is rock that nothing flows through. Guess what shale can do, because it is PERMEABLE. It can have gas flowing through it. Now you can't be bothered to look up a word in a dictionary prior to inserting foot in mouth?

And there was certainly ZERO horizontal wells needed to develop the largest accumulation of natural gas in the known world in the 1920's and 1930's. Devonian shale. Still producing today. All vertical wells, all shot holes (no horizontal wells and no hydraulic fracturing) for the historically and geologically challenged.

 

Quote from: REThe equipment used for drilling in the 1800s was basically the same as what was used to drill a well for water.  The first wells they hir were basically accidental, and they blew out under so much pressure from NG they fracked themselves.  Drop some dynamite down the hole to frack some more.

Again, can't even get HISTORY right. Springboards and cable tools certainly drilled for brine for the salt, and occasionally hit oil. 1848. American well set the Ohio River on fire. It was a water well.  It didn't do this because of pressure, it did it because oil came up with the water, hit the brazer for making bits nearby, caught fire, and there was no well control back then so a flowing well now on fire flowed down the bank, into a local tributary to the Ohio, burning all the way.

What kind of pressure you figure natural gas 60' under the ground is under Mr "I only wish they taught about Lithostatic Pressure In Chemistry Class so I wouldn't so easily say something stupid in front of someone who knows better"? Folks in NY drilled a well into shale, it leaked natural gas, they threw a big cast iron lid on top of the well with a hole in it, and used in some cases hollowed out anything they could find to move it up and down the street to run lighting. You figure those materials are really good for handling high pressure natural gas do you? The kind you can stop by using your finger to plug the hole if you wanted?

Stick to chemistry, your understanding of geology isn't any better than your mechanic skills where you can't figure out fire-fuel-compression on an internal combustion engine. Someone who thinks they can do an appendectomy my ass, you can't get an American V8 started that sits a little while.

Face it RE, you can't accomplish dick when it comes to practical applications. Smarter than shit and if trapped in a wet paper bag would die because paper when wet is NON-PERMEABLE!!!

Quote from: TDoS on May 21, 2024, 05:31 PMI note that you missed the part where I already mentioned peak oil is real.

Peak Oil is real, but "Peak Oilers" are idiots.  Peak Oil is real, but Peak Oilers have egg on their faces.  What is UNREAL is YOU.  You're an anonymous troll who has spent the better part of the last 15 years dropping 1000s of posts under numerous different IDs on numerous websites claiming numerous researcher were wrong about the timeline, wrong about fracking, wrong about resource depletion, wrong about collapse...  It's doublespeak like this that makes anything you write unreal.  There's no substance to it.  It's just confusion.

RE

Quote from: TDoS on May 21, 2024, 06:05 PMFace it RE, you can't accomplish dick when it comes to practical applications. Smarter than shit and if trapped in a wet paper bag would die because paper when wet is NON-PERMEABLE!!!

Fortunately, I've never been trapped in a paper bag.  :)

RE

Quote from: RE on May 21, 2024, 06:29 PM

Quote from: TDoS on May 21, 2024, 05:31 PMI note that you missed the part where I already mentioned peak oil is real.

Peak Oil is real, but "Peak Oilers" are idiots.

Not all of them. Hubbert wasn't. There was a guy publishing in Natural Resources Research, Tony S. something or another, who had a clue. A professore at School of Mines who later became State Geologist of Oklahoma, he had it figured out, why it didn't work, what would make it work better. Kevin/Keith? King of XOM was studying it well 20 years ago.

Hubbert's disadvantage was timing, he was just at the cusp of seminal work in discovery process modeling by Arps and Roberts in the DJ Basin (which began 2 years after his 1956 paper). Given another decade, his estimates would have been far better for what they found, which was the cause for his peak thing working even a little. Reserve growth came along later and screwed things up, and wasn't figured out until a few decades later, but even Hubbert was doing excellent work for his time with his late-60's and early 70's work on the topic. The USGS, the best geologists floating around in the country benefited from his work when they finally nailed it down decades later. Pete McCabe had excellent discussions with Colin and Jean in the late 90's, and his work had not just clues but data as to why the peak oilers were missing the boat.

It was the folks who once they latched onto the idea, and then couldn't ever question their belief in it, who tended to muddy the waters. And that, as it turns out, wasn't an education level issue, smart folks, dumb folks, geologists, other professionals, plenty went for the idea and then just couldn't let go.

Quote from: REYou're an anonymous troll who has spent the better part of the last 15 years....

Certainly you and Haniel are the last to be able to claim I am a anonymous troll. No one else ever took the effort to track me down via my traveling and IP geolocating. And it is 19 years this November 29th.