Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Peak Oil is a Done Deal

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Peak Oil is a Done Deal

    Peak Oil Is A Done Deal

    by Dave Cohen - Association for the Study of Peal Oil and Gas (ASPO - USA) July 16, 2008
    It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings
    — anonymous

    The fat lady is warming up
    — anonymous
    I now believe that the hypothesis of a near or medium-term peak in the world's oil supply is confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt. A shift in emphasis that speaks to reducing our demand for oil and examining alternatives to oil is now required. I will be taking that road in the future, leaving specific concerns about the oil supply behind.

    Today's story briefly summarizes why I believe "peak oil" is a done deal. The forecast1 below reflects my own view. This analysis does not necessarily reflect the view of ASPO-USA.
    Global oil (crude + condensate) production will peak at 76.5 ± 0.5 million barrels per day (b/d) in 2011, ± 1 year, with a probability of 80%. There is a 20% likelihood that output will peak at another level—not 76-77 million b/d—between 2009 and 2013.
    This estimate intentionally says nothing about the shape of the production curve after the peak. I stand by this forecast and will not be revising it in the future. A "peak oil" forecast examines the supply-side of the oil market, but reality dictates that high prices will affect demand. My estimate can thus be viewed as a "low price" or "reference" case that ignores the effects of rising prices. See the Summary for a brief discussion.

    Saudi Aramco Update

    Business Week published Saudi Oil: A Crude Awakening on Supply? on July 10, 2008. Steve LeVine's story should leave us with no doubt about what to expect from the Kingdom in coming years. Mysteriously, this story was not Front Page News in every media outlet all over the world.

    Business Week received a "detailed document obtained from a person with access to Saudi oil officials." The new information simply confirms what I already knew, but independent confirmation helps us reach firm conclusions. PFC's Roger Diwan, a respected oil analyst, vetted the Business Week document.

    The data describes Saudi maximum sustainable capacity (table above). Capacity remains around 12 million barrels per day (b/d) for the next 5 years. An important shift occurs which should give us all pause.
    One dramatic part of the data concerns a site called Ghawar, which has been the kingdom's workhorse field for decades. It shows the field producing 5.4 million barrels a day next year, but the volume then falling off rapidly, to 4.475 million daily barrels in 2013. "That's why Khurais is so important—to make up for that decrease," said the oil industry executive who released the data.
    The long anticipated decline ("twilight") of Ghawar, the world's largest oil field, is reflected in the Saudi Light data (blue circle). If these numbers are accurate, Ghawar output declines 17% between 2009 and 2013. This works out to about 4%/year for each of the next 5 years. Production of "good oil"—not Manifa heavy sour oil (gray circle)—to offset these declines is supposed to come from Shaybah.
    Though 2014 is not included in the data, one of the fields listed—Shaybah—is to have a volume increase to 1 million barrels a day that year, from 750,000 barrels a day from 2009 to 2013, according to the oil executive.
    Simple arithmetic tells us that additions from Shaybah after 2013 will not offset Ghawar declines for more than one year. Business Week's source indicates that 10.4 million b/d is Saudi Arabia's maximum sustainable production level between 2009-2013. This number confirms what I wrote in The Saudis Are Blowing Smoke Again (ASPO-USA, March 12, 2008). Whether the Kingdom will actually produce at their maximum sustainable capacity is another question. See Sleepwalking Toward the Oil Precipice to learn about setting correct expectations about OPEC production in the coming decade (ASPO-USA, April 30, 2008). This passage is from Blowing Smoke
    Khurais and Manifa are very likely the last large (≅ 1 million b/d) increments that Saudi Arabia will be able to put on-stream—ever. A "paradigm shift" means the Kingdom is not going to knock itself out raising crude oil production to (best case) levels beyond 10.5 million b/d in the medium term out to 2012 or so, and will likely not be able to do so thereafter—Ghawar will not last forever, despite what Mr. al-Naimi or CERA think. Investment in additional capacity available after 2011 would have to be on the drawing board now, but there is no indication that Saudi Arabia has thought that far ahead.
    [I should add now that Khurais and Manifa must meet capacity expectations for the Business Week scenario to come true. Also, most Manifa oil will likely be refined in Saudi Arabia, not exported. The Saudis will export refined products beyond what they use themselves.]
    The Saudi peak is now in sight. Saudi Arabia is the only OPEC member that can raise production by any significant amount in the medium-term to 2013. The longstanding argument about the Saudis is over.

    The Non-OPEC Peak Is Assured

    Oil supply growth outside of OPEC has slowed considerably in recent years despite a long list of new projects. Unfortunately, the amount of new oil coming on-stream looks better on paper than it does in actuality.

    In February of this year, the EIA released its Outlook For Non-OPEC Oil Supply Growth in 2008-2009. The forecast boldly stated that the oil supply coming from outside the OPEC cartel would be 2.4 million b/d. The EIA has now revised their forecast as shown below (STEO, June 8, 2008). The revised numbers (in thousands of barrels per day) are shown in red.
    In my now inaptly titled These Are The Good Years, I shaved 1 million b/d off the EIA's numbers (ASPO-USA, February 20. 2008). Even this downward revision was insufficient. The EIA now puts growth at 1.06 million b/d for both years combined. Apparently I was overly impressed with paper barrels. It is not a mistake I intend to repeat. Predictably, the EIA has pushed most of the growth into next year. They are still playing the pollyanna game.

    In my Good Years column, I reviewed all the reasons why the EIA and other analysts have been overly optimistic about non-OPEC output. Delays are one factor, but the main reason for lowering forecasts is the overall non-OPEC production decline rate, and underlying rates for particular countries like Brazil or Norway. Now comes news that the International Energy Agency (IEA) has recalculated the global decline rate.
    Project delays averaging 12 months, coupled with global average decline of 5.2% - up from 4% last year – are the factors behind these revisions. Over 3.5 mb/d of new production will be needed each year just to hold global production steady. “Our findings highlight again the need for sustained, and indeed, increased investment both upstream and downstream -- to assure that the market is adequately supplied,” stated [Nobuo Tanaka, IEA Executive Director].
    It is crucial to understand that the decline rate outside of OPEC is higher than that within the cartel because non-OPEC oil includes the United States, the North Sea, Mexico, and other countries on the downslope of their production curves. Thus, the IEA revision can only mean one thing: non-OPEC declines are accelerating. This is the main reason behind the EIA revision.

    I am now going to switch gears and look at some data from the IEA's 2008 medium-term report covering the years 2008-2013.

    You can plainly see in the IEA's data why I called my review of the EIA's forecast These Are The Good Years (click to enlarge, look left). The data also reflect the peak of Russian oil production, for no "key non-OPEC increment" is listed for the world's largest producer outside Saudi Arabia. I also believe the addition from the Canadian tar sands (ASPO-USA, January 2, 2008) has been overstated—it is the largest addition! A significant part of Brazil's large contribution comes from increased sugarcane ethanol production.

    I am going to revise the IEA's forecast. First, I'm going to toss out their prediction for 2013. If we can't estimate next year's non-OPEC additions, how can we make a specific forecast for 5 years from now? Taking a closer look at the data, we see that OECD declines are minimal in 2009 and 2013. The 2009 estimate is understandable in light of the fact that both Atlantis and Thunder Horse are now on-stream in the Gulf of Mexico. Both fields will hit their maximum capacity (450,000 b/d combined) later this year or next year.

    The 2013 estimate can not be trusted, however. Even if there are scheduled additions in the Gulf of Mexico in that year that compensate for OECD declines, we should keep in mind that both Atlantis and Thunder Horse were subject to 3-year delays beyond their initial start-up dates. The 2013 addition is suspect, and does not affect my peak estimate in any case.

    Second, I am talking about crude + condensate, so I will toss out the ethanol, natural gas liquids (NGL) and refinery processing gains included by the IEA.

    After revisions, I believe the net addition is approximately 500,000 b/d for the medium-term. If 2008-2009 are not the good years, and apparently they are not, then no amount of highly profitable light sweet crude from places like Ghana will save us. The non-OPEC crude + condensate peak in 2010 is all but assured.

    The Rest of OPEC

    We have figured out what to expect from the non-OPEC countries, and we know what to expect from Saudi Arabia. It is now a simple matter to figure out what the contribution from the rest of OPEC will be, add up all the increments, and make our "peak oil" prediction.

    The next graphic shows the IEA's take on OPEC growth in the medium-term.
    The IEA's data shows that OPEC capacity rises 2.5 million b/d in 2008-2013, but we must revise that number based on the new Saudi data. In its June Oil Market Report, the IEA puts Saudi capacity at 10.65 million b/d. If we add 1.78 million b/d to this number (graph above), we get 12.43 million b/d. But we know that Saudi capacity never exceeds 12 million b/d in the medium-term, so the IEA has overstated that capacity addition by 0.43 million b/d. If the total OPEC addition is 2.5 million b/d, then the revised number is now 2.07 million b/d and the Saudi addition is 1.35 million b/d.

    Regardless of the Saudi contribution, the "rest of OPEC" contributes 0.72 million b/d of new production capacity in 2008-2013. In the IEA's pie chart (graph above, right), the numbers do not add up to the supposed total addition of 2.5 million b/d. This "miscalculation" is understandable in view of the impossibility of assessing future additions from Iraq or Nigeria.

    Now is not the time to get into a tortured discussion about whether "peace will break out" in Iraq or Nigeria allowing some production increases. I am going to accept the IEA's number of an addition of 0.72 million b/d outside of Saudi Arabia.

    Summary

    I am now in a position to add up the production numbers arrived at above, but first I need to establish a baseline. I will use the EIA's data (here and here) for May, 2008. The EIA's 4-month average for 2008 is 74.325 million b/d. Saudi production in May was 9.4 million b/d, up 300,000 b/d from April. I will add those barrels to the 4-month average to obtain a baseline of 74.625 million b/d.

    We can now add our additions to the baseline. The non-OPEC increment is 0.5 million b/d, the Saudi increment is 1 million b/d, and the rest of OPEC increment is 0.72 million b/d. Together, these yield 2.22 million b/d. Adding this to the baseline, we get 76.845 million b/d. If you look back at both of the IEA charts, you will see that OPEC capacity additions fall off considerably in 2011, while non-OPEC additions drop after 2009. My view is that after 2011, we will never surpass production levels achieved that year.

    The oil price is rising quickly. The higher prices preceding the peak are now dampening demand in the United States and elsewhere in the OECD. However, subsidized consumption growth outside the OECD (China, etc.) is still soaking up demand reductions elsewhere. I can not predict future oil prices with any certainty, and I can not predict future oil demand with any certainty, although I have discussed these subjects at length in other columns.

    Obviously, I can not predict the exact shape of the world oil production curve in the next 5 years. What I can do, however, is establish a ceiling for world oil production should demand remain strong going forward. That ceiling, now and forever, is likely to occur in 2011 somewhere between 76 and 77 million b/d.

    We are so close to the peak now that quibbles about the numbers cited here do not matter. My familiarity with the oil industry justifies many of the "hidden assumptions" I've made and did not have time to discuss here. If you remain unconvinced that a peak of world crude oil production is not almost upon us, nothing I could say further will persuade you in any case.

    As I said at the top, this is my official forecast and I will not revise it in the future. I will note for the historical record that in July of 2008 few Americans have come to grips with the implications of a permanent peak in the world's oil supply despite the strong price signal we've seen for several years now. I have done all I could over the last few years to warn everyone about what's coming. My conscience is clear even as my concern remains high.

    For me, the time has come to examine measures we might take in the post-peak world.

    Contact the author at dave.aspo@gmail.com

    iTulip Select: The Investment Thesis for the Next Cycle™
    __________________________________________________

    To receive the iTulip Newsletter or iTulip Alerts, Join our FREE Email Mailing List


    Copyright © iTulip, Inc. 1998 - 2007 All Rights Reserved


    All information provided "as is" for informational purposes only, not intended for trading purposes or advice.
    Nothing appearing on this website should be considered a recommendation to buy or to sell any security or related financial instrument. iTulip, Inc. is not liable for any informational errors, incompleteness, or delays, or for any actions taken in reliance on information contained herein. Full Disclaimer
    Last edited by FRED; 07-16-08, 09:16 PM.
    Ed.

  • #2
    Re: Peak Oil is a Done Deal

    I'd be very interested to read what iTulip concludes will be the effect of this event upon the precious metals group. Does iTulip expect that these metals will provide a shield against the inflation which this approaching event describes? Will these metals keep up with the oil driven inflation rate, or will they largely outperform it?

    In a world of constantly ratcheting energy prices, say perhaps ten years out from now, when the energy inflation becomes thoroughly "built in" to global expectations, do the PM's then effectively "escape gravity" and cease to perform in parabolic blow-off which has been their paradigm in previous bull markets?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Peak Oil is a Done Deal

      Can someone remind me again what iTulip's position on peak oil is? Does this change iTulip's position at all?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Peak Oil is a Done Deal

        I actually know a resevoir engineer at Aramco. He said Saudi could add 5-6 M bpd of production if it wanted to. That said, I think most of those reserves are lower API and have more H2S, and so wouldn't help in the currnet situation.

        Light, sweet peak oil yes. Sour, heavy peak oil? NO WAY.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Peak Oil is a Done Deal

          Ken Deffeys talked about this once.

          His position was, they COULd, but if they did they would damage the field.

          I don't know HOW, specifically, one "damages" a field by overproducing it, just pointing out that the peak oilers have been talking about the possibility for a long time.

          Originally posted by phirang View Post
          I actually know a resevoir engineer at Aramco. He said Saudi could add 5-6 M bpd of production if it wanted to. That said, I think most of those reserves are lower API and have more H2S, and so wouldn't help in the currnet situation.

          Light, sweet peak oil yes. Sour, heavy peak oil? NO WAY.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Peak Oil is a Done Deal

            Originally posted by dbarberic View Post
            Can someone remind me again what iTulip's position on peak oil is? Does this change iTulip's position at all?
            EJ writes in:
            iTulip has since May 2006 maintained that the world oil supply will peak and decline – easily accessed and desirable oil first.
            Energy and Money Part II: Can We Repeal the Laws of Thermodynamics?

            We have plenty of oil. But we're running out of cheap oil and there are no cheap alternatives.
            Our objection to most Peak Oil theory have been: 1) lack of convincing evidence that anyone knows more or less when the peak in high grade oil occurs, and 2) that the downside of the supply curve is for the world is very steep as it was for the US in the 1970s. That forecast leads logically to ox drawn SUVs, Mel Gibson roaming the streets in the last of the interceptors, the nation run by the Ayatollah of rock n' rolla. Our view is that price will ration demand. The question is, how?

            Will oil prices rise faster than economies can adjust to afford the oil needed to buy the oil needed? In other words, might energy input costs rise so quickly that economies cannot generate net economic surplus? That is the Mad Max scenario,
            and in the case of less developed economies the answer is a kind of Mad Max world with spiking food and fuel costs causing economic chaos. What's the global outlook?

            Cohen says:
            "Obviously, I can not predict the exact shape of the world oil production curve in the next 5 years. What I can do, however, is establish a ceiling for world oil production should demand remain strong going forward. That ceiling, now and forever, is likely to occur in 2011 somewhere between 76 and 77 million b/d."
            What we hope to do, and have singled out Cohen for this here, is to establish an approximate date of physical high grade oil peak production from which to work backwards using Peak Cheap Oil theory to establish the sequence and trajectory of financial market and economic impacts.
            Ed.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Peak Oil is a Done Deal

              Thanks for the article, it is an interesting read.

              The conclusion is of course a doomsday scenario, which is no surprise. The "association for the study of peak o&g" determining that peak oil is here, shocking! That's like Greenpeace figuring out that we are destroying the world.

              The hypocrisy is pretty evident, it conveniently uses IEA estimates when it is favourable but then modifies other IEA estimates as it sees fit. The IEA is apparently reliable enough that they can determine worldwide decline rates and worldwide delays, but a confidential source who is a friend of another confidential source trumps it in Saudi Arabia. I especially love how 2013 forecasts that work against him are conveniently thrown out while they are kept in with other sources that support his argument.

              Presumably all of the sources are equally as biased but I quickly analyzed the first link that I clicked through. For anyone who wants to go through the exercise the premise is that oil sands cannot deliver the expected production growth because - get this - Canada doesn't have enough natural gas to extract it. I find the oil drum interesting because it is a different perspective and a good display of herd mentality; it is like going to a Apple convention and seeing all of the fans argue whether Apple is the best company ever, or the best company for all eternity.

              Anyway, I don't want to get too technical, but anyone with simple Google skills can tell that US natural gas production is way up in 2008 because of unconventional supply (tight gas out of Barnett being the main cause). There have been massive tight gas finds in the past year and these places are economical right now using new horizontal drilling/fracing techniques. How does this relate to the oil sands? Well, right beside the oil sands there is a major play that is developing very quickly (and yes, producing substantial volume already) call the Montney. This one gas field alone more than doubles Canada's previous natural gas reserves.

              More pertinent is that it really doesn't matter how much Canada will increase production, but how flawed the whole argument is to begin with.

              1) The first massive mistake is that it assumes that all refining occurs where the oil is extracted. Anyone with an elementary knowledge of oil and gas would know that this doesn't happen.

              2) Secondly, it makes the assumption that Canada would never stand for having to import petroleum because it was a producer. Canada already imports oil! It is a net exporter but the East coast imports while the West coast exports. Most Canadians don't even know this nevermind the assumed "outrage" that would come from it (there are actually coastal refineries that refine Iraqi oil, see point 1).

              3) The article smartly claims that LNG would never be able to make it to landlocked oil sands operations. How does gas produced in Alberta make it to coastal cities? Think hard.

              As I stated before, I fully agree with peak cheap oil but anyone new to the debate should be careful of biases.

              PS. An "over-produced" field is sometimes damaged by a rapid decrease in pressure.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Peak Oil is a Done Deal

                itulip has not posted anything from the peak oil groupies before so i assume this first article on itulip means we're trying to pick a physical peak target for peak cheap oil?

                edit: oops. just saw this... http://itulip.com/forums/showthread....41013#poststop

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Peak Oil is a Done Deal

                  Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                  Ken Deffeys talked about this once.

                  His position was, they COULd, but if they did they would damage the field.

                  I don't know HOW, specifically, one "damages" a field by overproducing it, just pointing out that the peak oilers have been talking about the possibility for a long time.
                  There are a lot of ways to "damage" a reservoir; and a lot of different definitions as to what constitutes "damage" (See, nothing is simple in oil :p) largely dependent on the bias of the commentator (oil producer, regulator, lease owner, government tax collector, environmentalist, etc.)

                  From excessive draw-down that results in water or gas coning in the near well-bore area, to complete mis-management of the voidage replacement or water/miscible/polymer flood injection, there are lots and lots of ways to really goof up.

                  Without getting overly technical, probably the best way to describe the never ending debate about "damaging" reservoirs is that in most instances, like so many other things in our world, there is a material difference or trade-off between managing the reservoir to maximize the immediate economic return from production, and managing it to maximize the ultimate recovered reserves over the long multi-decade life of most reservoirs. Think of it like a cattle rancher who can sell all his stock at auction this year for a great profit, or breed all his cows and increase the size of his herd for next year, at the expense of current cashflow. Tough decision. ;)

                  The creation of petroleum regulatory agencies, like the Texas Railroad Commission or the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board, was partly to put an end to wasteful flaring, venting and other free-for-all practises that resulted in rapid depletion of newly discovered fields. The other regulation function these agencies held was to pro-ration production from the wells to "ensure an orderly market" and keep the price from collapsing...sort of what the US Congress wants to sue OPEC for doing today.



                  Spindletop in Beaumont, Texas in mid-1903
                  Last edited by GRG55; 07-17-08, 09:09 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Peak Oil is a Done Deal

                    Originally posted by FRED View Post
                    EJ writes in:
                    Cohen says:
                    "Obviously, I can not predict the exact shape of the world oil production curve in the next 5 years. What I can do, however, is establish a ceiling for world oil production should demand remain strong going forward. That ceiling, now and forever, is likely to occur in 2011 somewhere between 76 and 77 million b/d."
                    What we hope to do, and have singled out Cohen for this here, is to establish an approximate date of physical high grade oil peak production from which to work backwards using Peak Cheap Oil theory to establish the sequence and trajectory of financial market and economic impacts.


                    Don’t forget to factor in the “new energy plan”
                    $200.00 oil or higher and $40.00 carbon per ton should motivate change as we enter peak oil time line.

                    http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C_...t_1707081.html
                    Rolls-Royce steams into nuclear market
                    17 July 2008
                    Rolls-Royce plans to become a major player in a future global nuclear industry worth $100 billion, using what it claims is the UK's most substantial nuclear supply chain.

                    Rose wrote in an editorial for the Daily Telegraph that "because the UK will be among the earliest countries to invest in the next generation of nuclear power, we should be able to build up expertise and experience. This experience can then be deployed in support of overseas projects in much the same way as the UK successfully used it experience in the North Sea to develop an export-oriented offshore oil and gas industry."
                    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mai.../ccview117.xml
                    Every reason for UK industry to play a full role in 'new nuclear' plan


                    By Sir John Rose

                    Last Updated: 10:51pm BST 16/07/2008



                    If we look back at Britain's industrial heritage, it is easy to point to a series of revolutionary innovations which have had a seismic effect on our society and on the world economy more generally.
                    The expansion of railways, the building of the SS Great Britain, the development of mass air travel, the discovery of penicillin and even the invention of an accurate way of measuring longitude would all be included on most people's list of transformational innovations, which have profoundly changed how we live our lives.
                    Each of these revolutionary developments spawned entirely new industries which delivered significant wealth for those countries and individuals who had the foresight and courage to invest in them.
                    Our newly discovered enthusiasm for nuclear power will arguably have an equally profound effect. Following the Government's very welcome decision to expand civil nuclear, most of the debate has understandably focused on the contribution which new nuclear might make to reducing climate change but I think it is now time to broaden the discussion to get a better understanding of nuclear's wider impact on the UK economy.
                    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...lt-866896.html
                    Brown sets 'no limit' on number of nuclear reactors to be built


                    By Andrew Grice, Political Editor
                    Monday, 14 July 2008

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Peak Oil is a Done Deal

                      itulip has not posted anything from the peak oil groupies before so i assume this first article on itulip means we're trying to pick a physical peak target for peak cheap oil?
                      Well, I quit the The Oil Drum because I couldn't stand the "end of the world" stuff & lack of quality there. And I quit ASPO-USA because they are totally ineffective. I am now mostly shunned in the "peak oil" world because I couldn't get with the doomer cult program.

                      I do have a thorough understanding of the oil markets, however.

                      So, Eric posts my analysis on itulip and you're calling me a groupie

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Peak Oil is a Done Deal

                        Originally posted by dave_cohen View Post
                        Well, I quit the The Oil Drum because I couldn't stand the "end of the world" stuff & lack of quality there. And I quit ASPO-USA because they are totally ineffective. I am now mostly shunned in the "peak oil" world because I couldn't get with the doomer cult program.

                        I do have a thorough understanding of the oil markets, however.

                        So, Eric posts my analysis on itulip and you're calling me a groupie
                        ok, i take it back. itulip drags its feet into anything it isn't sure of, until it's sure of it. sometimes that's 10 years before anyone else (eg ka-poom theory) other times after whole cults have formed around an idea, such as peak oil and teotwawki (the end of the world as we know it) per the oil doomer sites. then itulip comes out with a reasonable treatment like peak cheap oil... a logical extension of the 2006 energy and money piece, but to our resident mad scientist luke, a 100% capitulation.

                        i welcome your reasoned views. don't blame you for leaving the doomer crowd. they're hoping for an exciting end of the world outside their control so they don't have to take responsibility for the boring life they've made for themselves, given too much choice. they want choice taken away so they have someone else to blame.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Peak Oil is a Done Deal

                          Originally posted by dave_cohen View Post
                          Well, I quit the The Oil Drum because I couldn't stand the "end of the world" stuff ... I am now mostly shunned in the "peak oil" world because I couldn't get with the doomer cult program ... and you're calling me a groupie
                          Dave - here's an artful hint, after long acquaintance with the above denizen: When obliquely (or not so obliquely) referred to as a "groupie" by Metalman, (who has never met you or read your ideas before in his life) your most pungent and acerbic response around here would be to murmur something about "the pot calling the kettle black". Trust me, it goes straight to the spot, like a homing pigeon.

                          Lots of good stuff over at the Oil Drum, in amongst the over-the-top doom. Admittedly some of those guys need to take a Prozac on their gloomier days. After spending a little time at iTulip however you'll get a much needed tonic to your recent overdose of gloom from the Oil Drum, as they are almost reflexively dismissed in this community. That is, dismissed despite some of their yeoman's work on the oil predicament having indirectly informed iTulip's own views over the past few years.

                          This community takes an "optimistic view" of the future's yawning energy shortfall. "Doom is for dummies, and stopped clocks", that's the motto here. Meanwhile, I'm still rummaging around looking for the "credits" regarding the Oil Drum's groundwork on the original Peak Oil issue here in the fine print where the topic has been "picked up" by iTulip in more recent years, but I must be getting nearsighted, as I've been singularly unsuccessfull finding any reference to them!

                          Welcome to the iTulip Zoo. And Metalman calling you a groupie, without so much as a preliminary introduction? ... that's a bit much.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X