A large part of the argument for why the worst of the peak oil predictions are wrong though is that they ignore the impact that price rises will have on making previously uneconomic reserves economic, so it's not surprising to find that Falcon rejects the data that doesn't fit with his world view for the spurious reason that it's not a new discovery, just something that was previously uneconomically recoverable but now is.
So we are clear. You were challenged to show:
1. Evidence that we are on track to discovering the equivalent of 150% of current Saudi resource
2. Evidence that such addition is new resource, not mobilised previous discovery
3. Evidence that such new resource can sustain the same production rate as the depleted resource did
You were further challenged to acknowledge that, even if you could, you'd have demonstrated only a 14 year peak extension - far less that than the time necessary to build out your projects. And you were challenged to acknowledge that the additional hydrocarbon would fry the planet.
You can't do it and you won't acknowledge the point. Instead you'll replicate your little strategy of quibbling about minor noise in the data to avoid the signal. Good luck with it.
Meanwhile, your assumption about my assumption about the effect of oil price is, of course, wrong (that said, your consistency is remarkable).
What the peak oil prediction employs is a logistics curve fitted to historical data. The logistic curve accurately models any system which starts easy and ends hard (which describes the global petroleum system type). Its fit to historical data encodes the technical and economic context of that historical data. Its projection forecasts the oil that an accumulation will yield under similar technical and economic conditions.
The same technical and economic conditions will yield the declining profile governed by the start easy end hard dynamics. Better technical and economic conditions would have yielded an increment relative to that projected decline. Poorer technical and economic conditions (our future) will yield a deficit relative to the projected decline. Your statement that peak oil forecasts ignore price is factually incorrect - it accommodates it easily.
Price is only one economic factor. Lifting cost is the other. Oil price and lifting costs have both doubled. I referred you to IEA sources asserting that net investment is falling. There have been no technical improvements in recent decades that compare with the introduction of satellite remote sensing, downhole sensing using miniaturised computers, supercomputer based seismic processing, and geophysical and geochemical advances in the 1970's. Since neither economic nor technical conditions are improving in net terms, we are tracking the projection encoded by near historical conditions. The reserves you report are accelerations (existing resource brought forward by investment), not additions (additional resource discovered by investment). Their effect will be to steepen depletion, intensifying the stress on the economic system round about the time they are attempting to scale up your projects.
Hubbert forecasting techniques are founded in petroleum engineering methods and offer a lot of very interesting properties that yield useful insights into oilfield dynamics. Sadly, you don't have the kind of mind that is receptive to new information, so they must remain a mystery to you.
I'll save you a lot of typing by advising you I have no intention of engaging in the sort of uninformed debate with which you advanced your curious ideas about the properties of our climate system.
) data for actual discoveries? All your graph shows is frenzied searching. We need to know what they found.
