Skip to main content

Peak Oil Debunked?

Since we often point to sources that support the theory of Peak Oil, I thought it was only fair to point to a blog that believes the contrary.

Thanks to Rob McMillin, the Peak Oil Optimist, for the link.

Technorati tags: , , , ,

Comments

Anonymous said…
Be leery of so-called "debunkers" who blog anonymously and don't provide any info on their qualifications to comment.
Anonymous said…
There's no clear-cut answer. After doing my own research, I'm taking Peak Oil seriously. The Peak Oil crowd says that we have already hit the top of Hubbert's curve. The anti-Peak Oil crowd says it won't happen till about 2030, give or take 5 years.

The thing to keep in mind is that it will take the world a good twenty to thirty years to shift away from oil as its primary energy source. So even if the most optimistc scenario is correct(i.e., Peak around 2030), we will need to get off our behinds right now and start a massive migration program to renewable energy platforms. I don't see that happening. Moreover, people like Lynch are lulling the public into a false sense of security.

BTW, I recommend www.theoildrum.com for a very balanced and pragmatic approach to analyzing what's actually happening with oil production in various countries. If you are partial to statistical analysis and graph, you'll love the site.
JD said…
Be leery of so-called "debunkers" who blog anonymously and don't provide any info on their qualifications to comment.

LOL. Heinberg doesn't have any qualifications. He's a musician. Savinar's an unemployed lawyer. Kunstler is a novelist. Ruppert is an ex-cop. Simmons is a financier/lobbyist. None of them have any technical qualifications.

Also, FYI, I don't have any position on when peak oil is going to occur. I don't make predictions.

The folks who are all shrill about "doing something now" are going to get totally played by every industry lobby out there. "Doing something now" is going to smoothly synch into gutting environmental regulations, and pork projects like handouts to the ethanol industry and refiners.
Anonymous said…
"LOL. Heinberg doesn't have any qualifications. He's a musician. Savinar's an unemployed lawyer. Kunstler is a novelist. Ruppert is an ex-cop. Simmons is a financier/lobbyist. None of them have any technical qualifications."

Like I said earlier, read www.theoildrum.com. Forget the others.
JD said…
Like I said earlier, read www.theoildrum.com.

Of course. They have all the highly credentialed contributors with real names like "Professor Goose" and "Dave" and "Bubba". If you look up Bubba's credentials, you get a link to his political rants with a picture of Elvis as "Bubba-Hotep".

Granted Stuart has a real name and some bona-fide degrees, but he's not very pessimistic
Anonymous said…
Have you read this? http://www.theoildrum.com/special/about

I have heard Stuart interviewed on radio. I doubt that someone as intelligent as him would have joined the Oil Drum crew and be posting under his real name, if they were moonbats.
Anonymous said…
JD,

Okay, I figured out who you are, JD. So what are your credentials to run your debunking blog? I looked at your profile and there's nothing there. Nothing. I'm not saying that you aren't qualified to speak out on Peak Oil, but it's a lot easier to take four guys with Ph.D.s seriously than it is an anonymous blogger.
JD said…
peter,
Two of those Ph.D.s are in the social sciences, and Stuart's qualifications in physics, statistics and computer science are tangentially related at best. I personally have corrected him on matters of fact on a number of occasions.

Peak oil is a horrendously complex topic. As Stuart himself has written: "The relevant disciplines include at least geology, petroleum engineering, economics, sociology, urban planning, international development, climatology, demography, political science, mining engineering, military strategy, archaeology, history, chemistry and chemical engineering, physics, statistics, biology, ecology, agricultural science, and electrical engineering."

So I think you're fooling yourself if you think anyone is "qualified" to analyze it.

Don't get me wrong. The Oil Drum is a great source, and I read it too. But I'm a nuts-and-bolts guy, and I put no stock whatsoever in credentials. I evaluate peak oil arguments based on hard data and evidence. Credentials are a crutch for those who aren't competent to evaluate arguments on their own.
Anonymous said…
JD said: "But I'm a nuts-and-bolts guy, and I put no stock whatsoever in credentials. I evaluate peak oil arguments based on hard data and evidence. Credentials are a crutch for those who aren't competent to evaluate arguments on their own."

Sorry man, but that's not a very good response. Almost anyone with a doctorate will be well-versed in analyzing data--even if it's from a field different from their original discipline. Moreover, these guy are analyzing the "hard data".

If forced to choose between these 4 Ph.Ds and a "nuts and bolts guy" (whatever that is), I'll go with the former.

Think about putting some info about yourself on your blog to build your credibility.

Then you said: "So I think you're fooling yourself if you think anyone is "qualified" to analyze it." Followed by:"Credentials are a crutch for those who aren't competent to evaluate arguments on their own."

What makes you think that you are qualified to analyze the Peak Oil situation then? Why is your analysis more accurate than theirs?

Right now, you are just a mysterious blogger basically stating that everyone is wrong and you are right.
JD said…
Thanks peter. Maybe I should have made myself clearer: I have ZERO interest in people's credentials. Credentials are a boring, trivial side issue for lightweights. Maybe we'll talk again sometime if you ever get off the pot and make a substantive point about peak oil.
Anonymous said…
"Credentials are a boring, trivial side issue for lightweights."

Well, we all know what the English translation of this is.
Anonymous said…
For anyone interested in a Peak Oil primer this hour long talk with Jim Puplava, James Kunstler, and Richard Heinberg is a good start. http://www.financialsense.com/Experts/roundtable/021806.html

By the way, Heinberg is a college professor and not a musician. (At least that's not his day job.)
JD said…
College professor? That's rich. First of all, Richard Heinberg never even graduated from college. He studied painting and the violin at the University of Iowa before he dropped out. Then he played electric guitar in rock bands for seven years, and lived in a few "spiritual communities". Now he's a "core faculty member" (not professor) at a flaky hippy "college" in California offering master's degrees in highly demanding subjects like writing & consciousness, and women's spirituality.

Richard Heinberg has a high school diploma. That doesn't particularly bother me, because I don't care about people's credentials. I read what people write, not their resumes. I've read "The Party's Over", and it's pretty good. I agree with some of it.

You, on other hand, do care about credentials. So logically you should reject Heinberg, because he's not qualified to talk about peak oil. You don't, though, because you don't have any integrity.
Anonymous said…
JD,

How about revealing something about your qualifications? You have to be the most secretive person in the PO space.

Popular posts from this blog

Fluor Invests in NuScale

You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu

Wednesday Update

From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin