Not going to weigh in yet on further definitions of "freak events" etc, in
order to let others have their say, but I will say that the claim doesn't
need to be the end-all definition of "peak oil", and that what matters is
simply the description being unambiguous.
That is to say, I think it's ok if the events that are described as
satisfying the claim are clear, even if people continue to debate whether
we have reached "peak oil."
> Yes it is possible the claim as currently defined could get the year of
> peak oil wrong. My reading of current rules is that judge would have to
> judge peak had occurred if such percentage changes happened again.
> We are now further into oil production so another such large drop while
> still on the way up seems less likely. Also, there has to be some balance
> reached between how long to wait for judgement and how certain you want to
> be. The more likely concerning scenario to me is drops of between 0% and 1%
> such that we have to wait for around 10 years of data after the peak for it
> to be declared. To me this is rather long so rather than wanting to
> increase the 5% to make it more certain, I am wondering if we should make
> it easier to judge the claim earlier (even if it increases risk of judging
> it correctly per wording but wrongly as to actual peak oil date).
> Perhaps (either 5% decline from peak level or 5 consecutive years of
> declines in total exceeding 2%) provided that there are widespread
> expectations of further declines in production? Hopefully, this attempts to
> make it more certain and can allow less waiting after peak in some
> If people wish to suggest whether we need to make it more certain or
> whether possibly waiting time after peak is more important, please do so.
> Suggestions on how to word it to get the best combination of both aims are
> also welcome.
> On 24 August 2018 at 22:20 John Monroe <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Is a 5% drop enough? Based on that definition we reached peak oil in
> 1980. Of course production recovered subsequently but there were six years
> following 1980 where production was over 5% below 1980 levels, and two
> years when it was over 10% below 1980.
> How long do you keep it open to see if there is a new peak? We had to
> wait until 1989 after the 1980 peak. Would that be at the judges
> discretion or should the terms be more tightly defined?