Ideosphere Forum
From Fri Aug 24 21:28:51 2018
Received: from (localhost [])
	by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id w7P1SpLl019179
	for <>; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 21:28:51 -0400
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
	by (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id w7P1SpTo019178
	for fx-propose-outgoing; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 21:28:51 -0400
Received: from ( [])
	by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id w7P1SpkO019175
	for <>; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 21:28:51 -0400
Received: by with SMTP id 75-v6so8551724iou.11
        for <>; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 18:28:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025;
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025;
X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51BjSMLEZRFRhEHBbetsaiz/sXC3eQGDbplv4FaX3ZwwLfyrZ0ZP
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdbrhobEu33t14wbR76BD2vFt3Q5CkEYv1oIVQ1bhqiZ+67hIxHkEiOypMvaCCrQC/J57qSx+lO9LF9FvaOU8x4=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:c5c6:: with SMTP id v189-v6mr3052040iof.167.1535160530349;
 Fri, 24 Aug 2018 18:28:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
 <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Sam Fentress <>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 21:28:38 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: fx-propose: Proposal: 'POIL30'
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000015bb0a0574386ad6"
Precedence: bulk

 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."


On Fri, Aug 24, 2018, 6:22 PM chrisran.bma e-mail <>

> 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
> circumstances?
> 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.
> Regards
> Chris
> On 24 August 2018 at 22:20 John Monroe <> 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?
> John

Back to regular message display

All trademarks, copyrights, and messages on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Forum: Copyright (c) 2000-2001 Javien Inc All rights reserved. Distributed under the GPL