Spindoc, amusing. I have formed my own opinions based on a wide range of reading over a long period of time. It just so happens that as a result of this reading and subsequent analysis my opinions differ greatly to the mainstream view. At risk of being accused of participating in an infantile "link war" I suggest my 20 odd OLO articles indicate that I have formed my own opinion http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=5886

Ad hominem arguments don't really support your cause but I guess they might make you feel better.

Curmudgeon, the idea that a 'revolution' has occurred in the energy industry blinds you to seeing the underlying issues (but I guess it gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling that people such as Geoff and myself must upset). Your comment indicates that you still don't understand what the said chart says (perhaps Upton Sinclair's astute observation is relevant here: 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it')

Where does the vast majority of the worlds liquid fuels come from? Conventional crude oil (over 70mb/d). Tight oil, synthetic crude etc are only marginal sources (without looking it up about 4-5 mb/d) and NGPLs the production of which is growing reasonably strongly aren't in the main useful as a transportation fuel.

So the 4% decline rate from existing fields (you have not provided any evidence to suggest that this figure is not correct) implies that we lose around 3mb/d from decline each and every year which needs to be replaced. This is nothing new, the oil industry has been facing this issue for decades. It is highly unlikely, based on all of the predictions that I have read, from both "peak oilers" and non peak oilers that tar sands/tight oil etc are going to ever produce more than around 10 mb/d. Not an insignificant amount of course but not enough to make up for the 60mb/d or thereabouts required to sustain or grow current levels of oil production over the next 20 years

Geoff your last post has exactly what to do with oil production? All it tells us is that you hate "BIG". Perhaps that is what makes you cling to your wishful thinking, that peak oil is past.

With Geoff refusing to accept firm obvious evidence it does indicate how hard it is going to be to put the global warming fraud to bed once & for all.

If those who want to believe in peak oil can still do so, I wonder if a glacier running down Sydney harbour would be enough for the Greenpeace/greenie crowd to admit, even to themselves. that the whole story was an work of fiction.

Just yesterday I heard some people arguing against the leaked IPCC draft report admitting that "it was the sun baby" after all, causing "some" warming. They are starting with only admitting the sum is partly responsible, but I suppose dragging it out long enough can keep some employed through to retirement.

Meanwhile the warmists are starting to deny their god, the IPCC. Must be hard facing facts, when you so want the myth to be true.

Thank you leckos,

You have an opinion; it is clearly based upon what I’m sure is a vast quantity of links as a result of you being a “member of the Australian Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO Australia)” So we know you have lots of “ammo” in the locker .

The mantra of Peak Oil, like all other Peak “something”, has been thrust upon an unsuspecting public for one reason and one reason only, an alarmist threat of “it” running out, designed to frighten people into supporting action against the man made production of CO2 emitting fossil fuels. Pure, unadulterated Agenda 21.

The focus upon oil is a not very clever attempt to break up the fossil fuel mix into something you think you can make a case for; this as in the expression “conventional oil” which further granularises this mix. The principle being that if you can make a case against part of the overall fossil fuel mix, you think you can apply this to all fossil fuels, thus maintaining the rage for Peak oil.

This is an unforgivable abuse by pseudo-information. The public has been conditioned, to see oil as representation of our energy resources and you are maintaining this misconception.

What you are actually doing is ignoring that fact that the fossil fuels we use include a huge range of gases, oils and coals. That mix is changing all the time based upon a mixture of politics, energy type (product), demand, price, technology and availability. This entire entity is called a “Market” so why focus upon only one part of that market and only one product within available products?

The problem you now face is that the whole “rationale” behind the CO2 thingy has just collapsed with the release of the draft AR5 report from the IPCC, it’s all gone, a busted flush.

The fossil fuels issue must be addressed in its entirety. Given all sources of fossil fuels do we have enough to meet the economic growth that all nations need to improve prospects of all humans?

Cont.

Cont.

Once you have arrived at that point we can now discuss “the market”. We often talk about free markets but the energy market is not one of them. The energy market is very badly skewed (and screwed) by finance and policy, so any meaningful analysis of your position (opinion) has to account for the non-market variables that Agenda 21 has imposed.

The first is policy. The introduction of CO2 caps, targets, taxes and RET’s have sliced our industrial capacity in two, those industries that benefit and those who don’t.

Next we have financial interference. The injection of vast sums of public money into renewable energy in the form of subsidies, green credits, loans and grants which are always paid for by the consumer. These have again split our industrial capacity into two classes, those who receive those funds (commercial opportunists and rent seekers), and those who pay for it, other “polluting” enterprises and again, the public.

The energy market in its totally has been so severely bent out of shape that space has been created for the proselytizers to hop in an cause more confusion and opportunism.

I ask for your opinion on the following questions;

Who besides the public is paying for all this besides our taxes, inflation and energy costs?

To what extent do you believe that the “market” can operate in its current flawed state and why?

Given the total market mix of all fossil energy types, how long do you think the market can meet demand and why?

Why do you think that even after the injection of billions of Euro’s over 25 years, Germany has only managed to generate 6% of demand from renewable resources?

What is your opinion of those countries that are or will switch to shale oil/gas and or coal?

What do you think will happen to the market share now held by oil and to what extent and over what period?

Is there enough fossil fuel to reach the next step function in the technology of energy supply within say, the next hundred years?

Thanks.

If you drive a petrol or diesel powered vehicle, you're driving an algae powered vehicle!
Albeit,the algae was laid down millions of years ago and subjected to metamorphosis.
Most of those same vehicles, will happily run just as well on CNG, [methane,] or biogas, [methane.]
Some algae are up to 60% oil, and extracting it is mere child's play.
Algae absorb 2.5 times their bodyweight in Co2, [carbon emission,] and under optimised conditions, double that bodyweight and emission absorption capacity, every 24 hours.
Some hardy enough to cope with smoke stack emission in a closed cycle environment.
A foreign firm is now growing large ponds of it in our Northwest, and shortly able to supply the mining industry, with all its diesel requirements!
Others are doing what we should be doing, while we wast precious time squabbling about what should be done, or whether the planet is warming or not!
[A conversation two warm and comfortable frogs might have, while being slowly brought to the boil in a pot?]
Sooner or later we will have to end our reliance on oil; and or, the greedy grasping price gouging foreigners, who screw every last dollar from us, for it?
We should start now, to end for all time, that dependence!
Turning our biological waste, via closed cycle two tank systems, into onsite bladder stored methane, [Aussie innovation,] will enable us to power our homes and high rises, for very little. Adding in food scraps/wastage, will produce a saleable surplus.
Methane consuming ceramic fuel cells, which produce free hot water, [more Aussie innovation,] would be a useful place to start.
Electric vehicles powered by CNG, or home-made biogas, [methane,] and water cooled ceramic fuel cells, which produce mainly water vapour and an energy coefficient of around 60%, [triple that of a petrol powered piston engine,] part of our eventual independence.
Electric engines consume nothing, whenever waiting at lights etcetera, and a 60% energy coefficient, plus regenerative braking and a solar collector paint job, [Aussie innovation.] More than adequate in terms of comparative range and refuelling requirements!
Oil peak? Who cares?
Rhrosty.

Spindoc, we all have opinions and we all have "ammo in the locker" when it comes to the arguments we make whether that is for and against gay marriage, climate change belief or disbelief, or in this case whether peak oil is an issue or not. Yes I have a view, formed and constantly refined over time as new information comes to hand and I continue to investigate, analyse and think about an issue which concerns me. So what exactly is the point that you are trying to make?

As far as the mantra of peak oil being thrust upon an unsuspecting public, based on my experience (as well as other people I discuss these issues with) I would be greatly suprised if more than a very small percentage of the population has heard of the term peak oil and of those who have even fewer understand what it is.

In response to your comment I would state the following:
1. anyone who does understand peak oil would tell you that peak oil is not about running out of oil (clearly an absurd notion) but rather about supply being insufficient to keep up with demand (and at a cost that the economy can afford). An enormous difference. The running out of oil line is a not very subtle attempt used by those who don't believe in peak oil to try and destroy the peak oil argument and because most people don't understand the difference it is very effective.
2. virtually the only time that peak oil gets mentioned in the mainstream media is when some pundit denounces it ala Alan Kohler a few months back with "the death of peak oil."

Oil's aint oil's Spindoc, hence why virtually every organisation, governmental, business or ASPO separate oil into different categories. Conventional crude oil has very different properties to tight oil, oil shale, oil sands etc which impacts upon their economics, production profiles, production rates, energy return on investment etc.

cont