Yuku free message boards

EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES DOWNPUPPY'S CLAIM OF IMMINENT OIL DEPLETION--PLEASE READ THIS!

Quote:

---

1874? I said serious prediction. As in, 1)somebody who had a clue...

---

Oh how convenient for you that you can discount past predictions by claiming they were too ignorant to know what they were doing.

Let's see who some of these "clueless" forecasters were. Below is a small sample of spot-on oil depletion predictions made 35 to 44 years after the first prediction you panned. Note who made these predictionsare these the same people whom you would have us believe were "ignorant morons?"

1909The U.S. Geological Survey-- yeah, the same group that now wants us to believe oil production will begin a terminal decline in eight years--predicts that the United States will produce between 10 and 25 billion barrels note the extraordinarily wide rangebefore exhausting its reserves by 1935.

1915The U.S. Geological Survey decides that its original estimate10 to 25 billion barrelswas too optimistic. It now says that the total resource is only 9 billion barrels, 64% less than their upper estimate just six years earlier.

1916The Chief Geologist of the U.S. Bureau of Mines, in a report to the U.S. Senate (Document 310, 64th Congress, First Session, February 2, 1916), claims that U.S. oil production would peak in five years (by 1921), and that "the United States is confronted with a national crisis of the first magnitude."

1918Gilbert and Pogue (of the Smithsonian Institutionyouve heard of them, right?) predict imminent oil exhaustion, claiming that " there is no hope that new fields...may be discovered of sufficient magnitude to modify seriously the estimate." They continue, " [WWI] has merely brought into the immediate present an issue underway and scheduled to arrive in the course of a few years."

Quote:

---

[Please give a prediction made]...at a time when there was decent information available. Underground mapping became possible in 1926 - it took about 50 years from then to get a decent handle on the total global reserve

---

To simplify, lets talk about total resource predictions for the United States alone.

Since you've chosen to champion M. King Hubbert, let's start with your hero's first domestic depletion prediction, circa 1956 (by the way, thats 30 years after the 1926 turning point youve chosen to proclaim).

Below were the estimates of ultimate resources at that time. Note how broadly the estimates are dispersed (the high estimate is nearly 4 times higher than the low estimate). How can this be? After all, these experts were only estimating domesticnot globalreserves!!

> 300 Billion Bbls U.S. Dept of Interior (1956)
> 165 Billion Bbls Pogue, et al. (of Smithsonian Institution) (1956)
> 150 Billion Bbls Hubbert (U.S. Geological Survey) (1956)
> 145 Billion Bbls Pratt (1956)
> 250 Billion Bbls Hill et al. (1957)
> 372 Billion Bbls Netschert (1958)
> 204 Billion Bbls Weeks (1958)
> 165 Billion Bbls Davis (1958)
> 391 Billion Bbls Weeks (1960)
> 173 Billion Bbls Knebel (1959)
> 364 Billion Bbls Moore (1962)
> 590 Billion Bbls Zapp (1962)
> 400 Billion Bbls Averitt (1961)
> 175 Billion Bbls Hubbert (1962) What! The infallible Hubbert changed his estimate by 17%?!?!


Let's see, the range of estimates was about 150 billion bbls. to 590 billion bbls. Yep, it sure looks like your scientists can accurately predict oil depletion.

(Ahem...LOL!)

---------------------------

Hopefully, any rational person can see that expert predictions of global oil depletion or declining production areat besta shot in the dark. Likewise, it should be apparent that reliance upon appeals to authority (e.g., a consensus of scientists) is replete with hazard.

Despite this, you may still argue that one scientist (in this case, M. King Hubbert) did correctly predict the year that domestic oil production began to decline (of course, I would argue that one blind pig actually found a truffle) and therefore deduce that that sole scientist should be deemed the only true prophet of future global oil depletion, the only one of his many, equally educated colleagues who is skilled enough to correctly predict, using the same data as his colleagues, declining production (...hopefully, my sarcasm makes the utter absurdity of such logic apparent).

If you still cling to this perceptual defense, Downpuppy, then wait until Monday. I will then return to discredit Mr. Hubberts predictive abilities and cast doubt on his and other predictions of imminent oil depletion.

-LibLob
Unlike You, I Dont Believe Chicken Little

PS Am I getting factual enough for you, Downpuppy? (heh heh heh heh.....)


.

Quote:

---

Your point about the predictions is well taken. Regardless of the predictions about the global supply of crude oil, should we be seeking alternative, non-polluting or less polluting energy sources?

---

Narayan, youve raised an important issue, but its better suited for a new thread. Nonetheless, Im delighted you no longer believe Downpuppys ridiculous fantasy of imminent oil depletion and ensuing global economic death spiral. Unfortunately, Downpuppy and many others still cling to this notion.

Downpuppy has come to us with a minimal grasp of his subject and presented a highly pessimistic, flawed and misunderstood theoretical prediction disguised as fact, presumably to bolster opinion for some hidden agenda. Judging by the first several posts, many have blindly accepted his appeal to authority.

Narayan, we owe ourselves the duty of understanding the fundamental issue of depletion to avoid: a) forming unfounded opinions and b) promoting misguided reactionary government policies. We must expose the mendacity of Downpuppys chicken little scenario before we allow his imaginary concerns to manipulate us into carrying the banners of his interested causes.

Erroneous assumptions can adversely affected policy outcomes. Narayan, are you aware that rising oil prices during the 1970s were greatly exacerbated by misguided government policies? These policies were crafted in reaction to the common misconception that OPECs contrived oil shortage was the beginning of a permanent shortage. As oil prices and inflation rose during the early 1970s, seemingly appropriate policiesprice controls and allocation schemeswere devised in response. Unfortunately, these policies inhibited the markets ability to restrain demand and encourage domestic production. Thus, public policyin response to the common misconception that the oil shortages were real transformed OPECs contrived shortage into a real shortage by stimulating U.S. import demand. Sadly, all of this further reinforced the publics erroneous belief that the shortages were permanent.

Of course, ignorant policy makers didnt help either. Take this quote from the Carter Administration:

The diagnosisis simple: demand for energy is increasing, while supplies of oil and natural gas are diminishing. Unless the U.S. makes a timely adjustment before world oil becomes very scarce and very expensive in the 1980s, the nations economic security and the American way of life will be gravely endangered.
- National Energy Program, Executive Office of the President, 1977

That laughable quote was clearly designed to frighten the public into supporting the Administration's energy policies. It was based upon unfounded assumptions and, as a result, aggravated the problems it was designed to address.

In case you dont see the parallel here, the Carter Administrations reactionary slogans are no different than the Chicken Little cries we hear today from Cassandras like Downpuppy.

==================
Heres the truth:

We are not facing a secular decline in global oil production in 2010. In reality, we may never experience declining global oil production in our lifetime. Anyone who claims otherwise is either: a) an uninformed fool or b) trying to manipulate public opinion for his own agenda.

Where are you, Pupster? Im worried sick!

I'm sorry, but I just can't wait any longer. Let's have another good laugh at Downpuppy's "Chicken Little" story.

Quote:

---

...a centerpoint for estimates of likely remaining recoverable more-or-less conventional oil is 1200 gbl, and midpoint is 2010. This could be off by 300 gbl either way - and midpoint is only moved by 5 years...

...People have been drilling for oil for 145 years. You think maybe they're getting a handle on it by now?

---

Everyone, please take a look at the chart below.

Notice how "tightly" Downpuppy's expert geologist predictions of remaining global oil recoveries are clustered. Notice that Fisher's prediction of 3.8 trillion bbl. is over twice that of Campbell & Laherrere's 1.8 trillion bbl. prediction.

Also, contrary to what Downpuppy would have you believe, notice how the cluster of total predicted recoveries has not tightened as geologists have "gotten a handle" on the magnitude of total recoverable oil despite "145 years" of learning (if anything, the cluster has actually expanded over time).

As you examine this chart, also keep in mind that Downpuppy wants you to believe that these geologists all agree within a "five year" window--that global production will begin to decline in 2010! That's right, Downpuppy claims that geologists agree on a five year window of peak production, yet their predictions of total recoveries vary by a magnitude of two.

Finally, notice how the cluster of predictions is actually higher in the latter '90's than the early '90's. Is it possible that estimates will continue to rise?





Yup, after 145 years, Downpuppy's expert geologists definitely appear to be getting a handle on it!"


Do Downpuppy's alarmist claims insult your intelligence?

They should.


* * *

My next episode in the Debunking of Downpuppy:

Recent Geologist Predictions of Natural Gas DepletionA Tale of Pinpoint Accuracy

Dont miss it. Youll learn some valuable information!