# $5 a gallon oil in 2012



## Chris

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The former president of Shell Oil, John Hofmeister, says Americans could be paying $5 for a gallon of gasoline by 2012.

In an interview with Platt's Energy Week television, Hofmeister predicted gasoline prices will spike as the global demand for oil increases.

"I'm predicting actually the worst outcome over the next two years which takes us to 2012 with higher gasoline prices," he said.

Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst with Oil Price Information Service says Americans will see gasoline prices hit the $5 a gallon mark in the next decade, but not by 2012. 

$5 for a gallon of gasoline in 2012 - Dec. 27, 2010


----------



## mdn2000

This would be a better post as an example of "Peak Wind".


----------



## LordBrownTrout

That would REALLY help out our 10 percent unemployment economy.


----------



## Old Rocks

This is what the Conservatives want. Make sure that all the wealth goes to the very wealthy, whether they are here or abroad. And the Saudi princes will give the current leading Republican a big smackaroo in public, and make sure that the Repuke kisses his ass in private. Kind of like the time they visited Crawford


----------



## zzzz

I'm not sure about $5 a gallon but I do think $4 is not out of the realm of possibility. China's demand for oil (Their GNP is projected to rise at 10% next year) will increase as our demand is increasing. Supply and demand! The cost is $90 a barrel now and rising. And 70% of the cost of gas is dictated by the cost of a barrel of oil. 

Another interesting aspect here is that we import gasoline because our refinery capacity is not sufficient to supply our need. The largest importer of oil into the US...Canada, Nigeria, Mexico!

Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries


----------



## Trajan

its 355 for reg. here down I (it IS chevron) but even at 330...its getting up there. thank god the media is on it....


----------



## Trajan

Old Rocks said:


> This is what the Conservatives want. Make sure that all the wealth goes to the very wealthy, whether they are here or abroad. And the Saudi princes will give the current leading Republican a big smackaroo in public, and make sure that the Repuke kisses his ass in private. Kind of like the time they visited Crawford



Why yes of course, its all going according to our dastardly plot, we plan to make amerika pay more for gas, so we can pay more for gas so as to________________ what again?


----------



## Oddball

$5.00 gas and $2.00 Snickers bars.

Who is it that's inflating the shit out of the currency...BigOil or BigGubmint?


----------



## Revere

Old Rocks said:


> This is what the Conservatives want. Make sure that all the wealth goes to the very wealthy, whether they are here or abroad. And the Saudi princes will give the current leading Republican a big smackaroo in public, and make sure that the Repuke kisses his ass in private. Kind of like the time they visited Crawford



If the Saudi Princes control the price of oil, how did it get to $40/bbl in late 2008?


----------



## Revere

Under Barack Obama, the future of the United States is poverty.


----------



## Baruch Menachem

It is a scarce resource, and as the economy improves, the price will go up.

And there are more and  more well off chinese.   And Russians.   And Indians.   And Koreans.    And Czechs.   and Turks.    And Poles.

The US is unique in recent times for voting in stupid.    Most of the world is voting them out.


----------



## Oddball

Old Rocks said:


> This is what the Conservatives want. Make sure that all the wealth goes to the very wealthy, whether they are here or abroad. And the Saudi princes will give the current leading Republican a big smackaroo in public, and make sure that the Repuke kisses his ass in private. Kind of like the time they visited Crawford


----------



## GWV5903

Chris said:


> NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The former president of Shell Oil, John Hofmeister, says Americans could be paying $5 for a gallon of gasoline by 2012.
> 
> In an interview with Platt's Energy Week television, Hofmeister predicted gasoline prices will spike as the global demand for oil increases.
> 
> "I'm predicting actually the worst outcome over the next two years which takes us to 2012 with higher gasoline prices," he said.
> 
> Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst with Oil Price Information Service says Americans will see gasoline prices hit the $5 a gallon mark in the next decade, but not by 2012.
> 
> $5 for a gallon of gasoline in 2012 - Dec. 27, 2010



If it stays in the $90 to $105 range we will be fine, to far out of that range will probably take us on another roller coaster ride....


----------



## hortysir

Oil is already more than $5 a gallon.

Quaker State is $3.25 a quart.
That's $13 a gallon


----------



## ABikerSailor

You know.........big oil should remember that the biggest advances in alternative energy came from the last time that gas hit 4.00/gal.

Me?   I'm glad that I got back on my Lemond bicycle this summer, and am even more happy that I can knock out 20 miles no problem, even at age 46.

I hope that this time the alternative energy make even bigger advances because of this and render gas and oil useless.


----------



## Oddball

ABikerSailor said:


> You know.........big oil should remember that the biggest advances in alternative energy came from the last time that gas hit 4.00/gal.


Like what?


----------



## Revere

Oddball said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know.........big oil should remember that the biggest advances in alternative energy came from the last time that gas hit 4.00/gal.
> 
> 
> 
> Like what?
Click to expand...


Alternative energy technologies like hybrid batteries that are too noxious to manufacture in the US.


----------



## Intense

That will be the end of the recovery.


----------



## ABikerSailor

The Chevy folks came up with the Volt (which was production ready btw) in 2006.  They didn't release it until 2010.  Why?  Because up until then, nobody was interested in electric cars.

Honda as well as many other foreign car companies are coming up with electric cars, there is an increase in windfarms, and various stockyards as well as garbage dumps, are starting to harvest the methane that comes from those places.

Yep.........if big oil keeps doing what it's doing, they're gonna price themselves out of existence.

We can only hope..........


----------



## Yurt

i bet chris blamed bush for high oil prices during his term


----------



## Revere

ABikerSailor said:


> The Chevy folks came up with the Volt (which was production ready btw) in 2006.  They didn't release it until 2010.  Why?  Because up until then, nobody was interested in electric cars.
> 
> Honda as well as many other foreign car companies are coming up with electric cars, there is an increase in windfarms, and various stockyards as well as garbage dumps, are starting to harvest the methane that comes from those places.
> 
> Yep.........if big oil keeps doing what it's doing, they're gonna price themselves out of existence.
> 
> We can only hope..........



What is the use for an electric car with a range of 40 miles, and a price tag of $40,000?


----------



## Oddball

ABikerSailor said:


> The Chevy folks came up with the Volt (which was production ready btw) in 2006.  They didn't release it until 2010.  Why?  Because up until then, nobody was interested in electric cars.
> 
> Honda as well as many other foreign car companies are coming up with electric cars, there is an increase in windfarms, and various stockyards as well as garbage dumps, are starting to harvest the methane that comes from those places.
> 
> Yep.........if big oil keeps doing what it's doing, they're gonna price themselves out of existence.
> 
> We can only hope..........


That's not new technology...Still relies upon boiling water and twirling armatures to create the electricity....Hell, windmills are leftover technology from the 10th century.

When any of y'all come up with some _*genuinely*_ true and workable _*new*_ technology (i.e. electro-gravitics) gimmie a call.


----------



## Big Black Dog

I believe the reason that gas prices are so high is because of global warming.  Everything else happens because of global warming.  This has to be the reason why too.


----------



## Intense

A little over a week ago, the EPA released its window sticker and fuel economy ratings for the Nissan LEAF, which showed the car had a MPGe rating of 99, and a expected range of 73 miles.

At the same time, it was also announced that the FTC would also being affixing a sticker that only displayed the estimated range, and that range would be between 96 and 110 miles.

Why would there be two stickers? Why do they confict so much?  Well, basically there  is a 25 year old Energy Policy and Conservative Act that requires the FTC to do it.  
Nissan LEAF FTC Mileage Sticker Revealed: 96-110 Miles of Range


----------



## ABikerSailor

Revere said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Chevy folks came up with the Volt (which was production ready btw) in 2006.  They didn't release it until 2010.  Why?  Because up until then, nobody was interested in electric cars.
> 
> Honda as well as many other foreign car companies are coming up with electric cars, there is an increase in windfarms, and various stockyards as well as garbage dumps, are starting to harvest the methane that comes from those places.
> 
> Yep.........if big oil keeps doing what it's doing, they're gonna price themselves out of existence.
> 
> We can only hope..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the use for an electric car with a range of 40 miles, and a price tag of $40,000?
Click to expand...


That's just one model.  There was a model shown on the Science Channel (and yeah, at the time of the show it was 50,000), but it gets around 200 miles/charge.

New advances in batteries are popping up every day, and pretty soon, there are going to be electric cars that will render gas guzzlers obsolete.


----------



## Revere

Where is the power in the grid coming from for all these electric cars?


----------



## Revere

Has the Obama administration done anything to demonstrate it believes in generating more power in this country?


----------



## Oddball

Revere said:


> Where is the power in the grid coming from for all these electric cars?


----------



## ABikerSailor

What do you think the wind fields and solar fields are for?


----------



## Oddball

ABikerSailor said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Chevy folks came up with the Volt (which was production ready btw) in 2006.  They didn't release it until 2010.  Why?  Because up until then, nobody was interested in electric cars.
> 
> Honda as well as many other foreign car companies are coming up with electric cars, there is an increase in windfarms, and various stockyards as well as garbage dumps, are starting to harvest the methane that comes from those places.
> 
> Yep.........if big oil keeps doing what it's doing, they're gonna price themselves out of existence.
> 
> We can only hope..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the use for an electric car with a range of 40 miles, and a price tag of $40,000?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's just one model.  There was a model shown on the Science Channel (and yeah, at the time of the show it was 50,000), but it gets around 200 miles/charge.
> 
> New advances in batteries are popping up every day, and pretty soon, there are going to be electric cars that will render gas guzzlers obsolete.
Click to expand...

Yeah...And some day they'll invent tires that accumulate more tread on them the farther you drive!


----------



## HUGGY

You people that bleat like sheep about the price of oil and how it is Obama's fault are beyond worthless pussy idiots.  There is only one way to have cheap gas and that is do what the Venezuelans and Bolivians did. Sink any foreign companies ships in the gulf ...empty of course.   Nationalize all of our oil supplies then attack all of the countries in the Mid East and take their oil.  Not some chicken shit ruse.  I mean tell them and the world that that oil is ours for all the money and American lives lost defending those worthless people for the last 50 years.  Take all of it. Sell NONE of it. Tell the Arabs to get back to breeding camels and donkeys.  The rest of the world can buy their oil from Russia. They don't care about their people like we pretend to. 

That should last us for another 50 years and we can fuel up are SUVs and fuck everybody else while we are paying 50 cents a gallon for gas.  By then I will be long dead and I won't have to think about what a bunch of worthless whining pussies you all are.  This is nothing like the true America the founders knew.  Ask the native Americans.  They have no illusions about who we really are when we stop bellyaching and do something about it.


----------



## Oddball

ABikerSailor said:


> What do you think the wind fields and solar fields are for?


Making environmentalist wackos feel good about themselves.


----------



## Toro

Damn, I hope so. I've got a bet on energy right now.


----------



## Revere

HUGGY said:


> You people that bleat like sheep about the price of oil and how it is Obama's fault are beyond worthless pussy idiots.  There is only one way to have cheap gas and that is do what the Venezuelans and Bolivians did. Sink any foreign companies ships in the gulf ...empty of course.   Nationalize all of our oil supplies then attack all of the countries in the Mid East and take their oil.  Not some chicken shit ruse.  I mean tell them and the world that that oil is ours for all the money and American lives lost defending those worthless people for the last 50 years.  Take all of it. Sell NONE of it. Tell the Arabs to get back to breeding camels and donkeys.  The rest of the world can buy their oil from Russia. They don't care about their people like we pretend to.
> 
> That should last us for another 50 years and we can fuel up are SUVs and fuck everybody else while we are paying 50 cents a gallon for gas.  By then I will be long dead and I won't have to think about what a bunch of worthless whining pussies you all are.  This is nothing like the true America the founders knew.  Ask the native Americans.  They have no illusions about who we really are when we stop bellyaching and do something about it.



How about just ramping up exploration (instead of the opposite) like every other country in the world who is or wants to be a superpower is doing?


----------



## Trajan

Revere said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people that bleat like sheep about the price of oil and how it is Obama's fault are beyond worthless pussy idiots.  There is only one way to have cheap gas and that is do what the Venezuelans and Bolivians did. Sink any foreign companies ships in the gulf ...empty of course.   Nationalize all of our oil supplies then attack all of the countries in the Mid East and take their oil.  Not some chicken shit ruse.  I mean tell them and the world that that oil is ours for all the money and American lives lost defending those worthless people for the last 50 years.  Take all of it. Sell NONE of it. Tell the Arabs to get back to breeding camels and donkeys.  The rest of the world can buy their oil from Russia. They don't care about their people like we pretend to.
> 
> That should last us for another 50 years and we can fuel up are SUVs and fuck everybody else while we are paying 50 cents a gallon for gas.  By then I will be long dead and I won't have to think about what a bunch of worthless whining pussies you all are.  This is nothing like the true America the founders knew.  Ask the native Americans.  They have no illusions about who we really are when we stop bellyaching and do something about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about just ramping up exploration (instead of the opposite) like every other country in the world who is or wants to be a superpower is doing?
Click to expand...


because elec. cars, wind and solar are just around the corner........why is brazil drilling a huge find off their coast? beats me they have not seen the future, we have.


----------



## Revere

I don't care if the price of gas goes up or down.  But it's insidious when some fucker in government tells me the solution is windmills.


----------



## sitarro

ABikerSailor said:


> The Chevy folks came up with the Volt (which was production ready btw) in 2006.  They didn't release it until 2010.  Why?  Because up until then, nobody was interested in electric cars.
> 
> Honda as well as many other foreign car companies are coming up with electric cars, there is an increase in windfarms, and various stockyards as well as garbage dumps, are starting to harvest the methane that comes from those places.
> 
> Yep.........if big oil keeps doing what it's doing, they're gonna price themselves out of existence.
> 
> We can only hope..........



How much oil does the Navy use in a day to power all of those boats cruising from port to port.


----------



## ABikerSailor

sitarro said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Chevy folks came up with the Volt (which was production ready btw) in 2006.  They didn't release it until 2010.  Why?  Because up until then, nobody was interested in electric cars.
> 
> Honda as well as many other foreign car companies are coming up with electric cars, there is an increase in windfarms, and various stockyards as well as garbage dumps, are starting to harvest the methane that comes from those places.
> 
> Yep.........if big oil keeps doing what it's doing, they're gonna price themselves out of existence.
> 
> We can only hope..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much oil does the Navy use in a day to power all of those boats cruising from port to port.
Click to expand...


Depends on if it's a nuclear powered vessel or not.  All US Navy carriers are nuke power now.

And.......they're working on other ships as well.


----------



## uscitizen

Baruch Menachem said:


> It is a scarce resource, and as the economy improves, the price will go up.
> 
> And there are more and  more well off chinese.   And Russians.   And Indians.   And Koreans.    And Czechs.   and Turks.    And Poles.
> 
> The US is unique in recent times for voting in stupid.    Most of the world is voting them out.



Absolutely, The slaes market is pretty much saturated in the USA we already buy more than we can afford.  So how does the economy grow?
Simple we pay more for what we already buy.


----------



## uscitizen

ABikerSailor said:


> sitarro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Chevy folks came up with the Volt (which was production ready btw) in 2006.  They didn't release it until 2010.  Why?  Because up until then, nobody was interested in electric cars.
> 
> Honda as well as many other foreign car companies are coming up with electric cars, there is an increase in windfarms, and various stockyards as well as garbage dumps, are starting to harvest the methane that comes from those places.
> 
> Yep.........if big oil keeps doing what it's doing, they're gonna price themselves out of existence.
> 
> We can only hope..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much oil does the Navy use in a day to power all of those boats cruising from port to port.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on if it's a nuclear powered vessel or not.  All US Navy carriers are nuke power now.
> 
> And.......they're working on other ships as well.
Click to expand...


Yes the carriers are nuke powered but how much fuel do the aircraft burn?
Oil is also required to mine and process/transport nuculear fuel.


----------



## HUGGY

Revere said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people that bleat like sheep about the price of oil and how it is Obama's fault are beyond worthless pussy idiots.  There is only one way to have cheap gas and that is do what the Venezuelans and Bolivians did. Sink any foreign companies ships in the gulf ...empty of course.   Nationalize all of our oil supplies then attack all of the countries in the Mid East and take their oil.  Not some chicken shit ruse.  I mean tell them and the world that that oil is ours for all the money and American lives lost defending those worthless people for the last 50 years.  Take all of it. Sell NONE of it. Tell the Arabs to get back to breeding camels and donkeys.  The rest of the world can buy their oil from Russia. They don't care about their people like we pretend to.
> 
> That should last us for another 50 years and we can fuel up are SUVs and fuck everybody else while we are paying 50 cents a gallon for gas.  By then I will be long dead and I won't have to think about what a bunch of worthless whining pussies you all are.  This is nothing like the true America the founders knew.  Ask the native Americans.  They have no illusions about who we really are when we stop bellyaching and do something about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about just ramping up exploration (instead of the opposite) like every other country in the world who is or wants to be a superpower is doing?
Click to expand...


Ya let's give what's left of our oil to the BP's of the world so they can sell it on the open market. Then we can buy it back from them bidding against the Chineeez.   Fuck you!  MORON!!!!  The Venzu's and the Bolivians pay less than 50 cents a gallon.  I know you stupid fucks are brainwashed to give EVERYTHING to the wealthiest people on the planet.  Tell ya what fuckwit...just cash out and YOU send BP a check for all you are worth..  Leave the rest of us out of your welfare for the super rich program.  I think average  Americans could make better use of the 100 to 200 dollars a week they could save and invest in their lives ... pay for houses...  put their kids through college... start businesses... GAWWWD!!!  You people are FUCKING STUPID!!!!!


----------



## Revere

Is the average Venezuelan better off no matter how many industries Hugo Chavez grabs?


----------



## uscitizen

HUGGY said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people that bleat like sheep about the price of oil and how it is Obama's fault are beyond worthless pussy idiots.  There is only one way to have cheap gas and that is do what the Venezuelans and Bolivians did. Sink any foreign companies ships in the gulf ...empty of course.   Nationalize all of our oil supplies then attack all of the countries in the Mid East and take their oil.  Not some chicken shit ruse.  I mean tell them and the world that that oil is ours for all the money and American lives lost defending those worthless people for the last 50 years.  Take all of it. Sell NONE of it. Tell the Arabs to get back to breeding camels and donkeys.  The rest of the world can buy their oil from Russia. They don't care about their people like we pretend to.
> 
> That should last us for another 50 years and we can fuel up are SUVs and fuck everybody else while we are paying 50 cents a gallon for gas.  By then I will be long dead and I won't have to think about what a bunch of worthless whining pussies you all are.  This is nothing like the true America the founders knew.  Ask the native Americans.  They have no illusions about who we really are when we stop bellyaching and do something about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about just ramping up exploration (instead of the opposite) like every other country in the world who is or wants to be a superpower is doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya let's give what's left of our oil to the BP's of the world so they can sell it on the open market. Then we can buy it back from them bidding against the Chineeez.   Fuck you!  MORON!!!!  The Venzu's and the Bolivians pay less than 50 cents a gallon.  I know you stupid fucks are brainwashed to give EVERYTHING to the wealthiest people on the planet.  Tell ya what fuckwit...just cash out and YOU send BP a check for all you are worth..  Leave the rest of us out of your welfare for the super rich program.  I think average  Americans could make better use of the 100 to 200 dollars a week they could save and invest in their lives ... pay for houses...  put their kids through college... start businesses... GAWWWD!!!  You people are FUCKING STUPID!!!!!
Click to expand...


Yep we need to keep our oil for later.
Lets use everyone elses first.

One good thing, once the middle east runs out of oil we will quit spending money and lives fighting there.


----------



## Revere

Will Islamists stop trying to put guys with bombs in their underwear on planes when we stop buying middle east oil?


----------



## HUGGY

Revere said:


> Is the average Venezuelan better off no matter how many industries Hugo Chavez grabs?



Is the average Venezuelan better off ...shit ya fuckwit...they pay about 25 cents a gallon for gas...what do you think...????  How do you think they would be doing paying what we pay?

What the fuck is wrong with your brain?

What Americans would it hurt if we made it possible to buy our gas for 50 cents a gallon for the next 50 years? NO MATTER HOW WE ACHIEVED IT!!!

I'm trying to be nice but we are getting real close to a GO FUCK YOURSELF!!!!

I'm not stupid like your pals..just keep telling yourselves that all wealth must go to BP.  Me... I would rather rob them....kill them...  Skin them and use their hides as lamp shades.


----------



## Revere

Why does Chavez keep grabbing more industries? 

Isn't it good enough for him to control the oil?


----------



## HUGGY

Revere said:


> Why does Chavez keep grabbing more industries?
> 
> Isn't it good enough for him to control the oil?



Maybe because he is smarter than we are. He is doing more for his people just in the cost of gasoline than ANY U S  president has ever done for the average American save Ike with the freeway system.   If you really cared about OUR future more than the trillions the international super rich haven't siphoned off yet you might ACTUALLY be the patriot you think you are.

But you are right..We are smarter because we are Americans..right??...no matter how stupidly we conduct ourselves and waste our resources we are still the best and the brightest..eh?


----------



## Revere

Chavez is making a better life for people in Venezuela?


----------



## Marc39

HUGGY said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does Chavez keep grabbing more industries?
> 
> Isn't it good enough for him to control the oil?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because he is smarter than we are. He is doing more for his people just in the cost of gasoline than ANY U S  president has ever done for the average American save Ike with the freeway system.   If you really cared about OUR future more than the trillions the international super rich haven't siphoned off yet you might ACTUALLY be the patriot you think you are.
> 
> But you are right..We are smarter because we are Americans..right??...no matter how stupidly we conduct ourselves and waste our resources we are still the best and the brightest..eh?
Click to expand...


HUGGY, another self-hating Marxist with an inferiority complex and persecution complex.

Sucks being you.


----------



## uscitizen

Whatever way we do things just has to be the best way in the world to do it.


----------



## Revere

Since when do lefties love interstate highways or the cars and trucks that clog them?


----------



## Marc39

HUGGY said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the average Venezuelan better off no matter how many industries Hugo Chavez grabs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the average Venezuelan better off ...shit ya fuckwit...they pay about 25 cents a gallon for gas...what do you think...????  How do you think they would be doing paying what we pay?
> 
> What the fuck is wrong with your brain?
> 
> What Americans would it hurt if we made it possible to buy our gas for 50 cents a gallon for the next 50 years? NO MATTER HOW WE ACHIEVED IT!!!
> 
> I'm trying to be nice but we are getting real close to a GO FUCK YOURSELF!!!!
> 
> I'm not stupid like your pals..just keep telling yourselves that all wealth must go to BP.  Me... I would rather rob them....kill them...  Skin them and use their hides as lamp shades.
Click to expand...


The UN ranks Venezuela #75 out of 170 countries for freedom, equality and economic and health opportunities, which is not particularly good, you wanker.
Statistics | Human Development Reports (HDR) | United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

On the other hand, Israel is among the top 15 best countries to live in, edging out the UK, Spain and Italy.  

In other words, you don't know what the fk you're talking about, you clueless twit


----------



## hortysir

Yurt said:


> i bet chris blamed bush for high oil prices during his term


Isn't it odd that Obama isn't being blamed for these price increases???


----------



## HUGGY

Revere said:


> Chavez is making a better life for people in Venezuela?



Don't be a fucking moron.  Yes. In some ways he is.  If you make 10 bucks a day working a GOOD job 3 dollar a gallon gas is CRIPPLING!  25 cents a gallon means opportunity and the freedom to travel.... Why do I need to explain the obvious to you?  Are you fucking retarded?  If you are I won't talk to you anymore because that would be unkind.

What the fuck is wrong with you?  Even those on unemployment could start new businesses with the money they didn't send to BP through their tailpipe if we got smart and decided SOME things were a national security issue.  Of course an idiot like you will extrapolate that to communism...  Just the commodities that will kill us if we do not get control of their costs...AND their availability!!!  How do you think WE would fare if BP decided to have all it's oil production go somewhere else?  What if even MORE refineries magically had to shut down...OOPS! that is already happening.  You do know that at a certain point people like you will have to be recycled for the survival of our country.  Your stupidity cannot be absorbed forever.  There is a limit to how fucked up you purposely  MAKE things and peoples inevitable reaction to that.


----------



## Revere

Um, unemployment is not designed to be seed money for entrepreneurial endeavors.


----------



## HUGGY

Marc39 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Revere said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does Chavez keep grabbing more industries?
> 
> Isn't it good enough for him to control the oil?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe because he is smarter than we are. He is doing more for his people just in the cost of gasoline than ANY U S  president has ever done for the average American save Ike with the freeway system.   If you really cared about OUR future more than the trillions the international super rich haven't siphoned off yet you might ACTUALLY be the patriot you think you are.
> 
> But you are right..We are smarter because we are Americans..right??...no matter how stupidly we conduct ourselves and waste our resources we are still the best and the brightest..eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HUGGY, another self-hating Marxist with an inferiority complex and persecution complex.
> 
> Sucks being you.
Click to expand...


You wouldn't know.  Smart people know what dumb people are about.  Dumb people just don't get it..and by "it" I mean ANYTHING!  You assholes need to wise up while you are still worth the trouble.


----------



## Revere

How does Hugo Chavez know how people should spend their money?


----------



## Bones

Boy, I can't wait until Hubbert's peak oil curve is on the downward trajectory.  Considering pretty much all of America's infrastructure relies on oil, we're screwed.


----------



## HUGGY

Revere said:


> How does Hugo Chavez know how people should spend their money?



I repeat!  What the fuck is wrong with you?  What the fuck does the price of and future availability of gasoline here in the United States  have to do with Chavez?

OK I get it...you cannot imagine your neighbors kicking in your door and taking everything including your life.  You probably have never been anywhere where that possibility is a constant probability.  Do you have any fucking idea how close we just came to THAT very reality as you fucking morons were holding 20 million already desperate Americans hostage so your precious billionaires wouldn't have to pay a fair share of the freight?

You obviously do not know much about human nature sport.  I've been in places where there are two pairs of machine gun armed police on EVERY FUCKING BLOCK.  FUCK!!! Never mind!!  you won't get it even when you are laying there dying on your front lawn and someone is pulling your gold teeth out of your mouth.   You think I am exaggerating?  I've seen it.  And not too very far from your boogyman Chavez.  You have no fucking idea what even you fine upstanding citizens are capable of when things get truly desperate.  I pity you dumb ones.


----------



## uscitizen

Bones said:


> Boy, I can't wait until Hubbert's peak oil curve is on the downward trajectory.  Considering pretty much all of America's infrastructure relies on oil, we're screwed.



yep unlike Europe and other areas America was designed around cheap oil and the automobile.
And we have gone away from mass transit vs towards it.


----------



## Revere

HUGGY said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does Hugo Chavez know how people should spend their money?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I repeat!  What the fuck is wrong with you?  What the fuck does the price of and future availability of gasoline here in the United States  have to do with Chavez?
> 
> OK I get it...you cannot imagine your neighbors kicking in your door and taking everything including your life.  You probably have never been anywhere where that possibility is a constant probability.  Do you have any fucking idea how close we just came to THAT very reality as you fucking morons were holding 20 million already desperate Americans hostage so your precious billionaires wouldn't have to pay a fair share of the freight?
> 
> You obviously do not know much about human nature sport.  I've been in places where there are two pairs of machine gun armed police on EVERY FUCKING BLOCK.  FUCK!!! Never mind!!  you won't get it even when you are laying there dying on your front lawn and someone is pulling your gold teeth out of your mouth.   You think I am exaggerating?  I've seen it.  And not too very far from your boogyman Chavez.  You have no fucking idea what even you fine upstanding citizens are capable of when things get truly desperate.  I pity you dumb ones.
Click to expand...


Crime rates in most areas are actually down with the sluggish economy.


----------



## Revere

uscitizen said:


> Bones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, I can't wait until Hubbert's peak oil curve is on the downward trajectory.  Considering pretty much all of America's infrastructure relies on oil, we're screwed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yep unlike Europe and other areas America was designed around cheap oil and the automobile.
> And we have gone away from mass transit vs towards it.
Click to expand...


Huh?  They are already rioting in the streets there because all the benefits they were promised can't be paid for.


----------



## westwall

This is Big Oil manipulating the media to gin up support for them to raise the price of oil and gas even though the demand actually is not there.  If the price of oil were based on actual demand it would be around 30-35 bucks a barrel.  All the rest is based on commodities brokers and investors.  The boys from Exxon anda few others think that demand for gasoline peaked in 2006 or 2007.  So why is the price going up?  Manipulation is the only reason.


Green Ink: Forget Peak Oil; Peak Gasoline is Already Here - Environmental Capital - WSJ


----------



## HUGGY

Revere said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Revere said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does Hugo Chavez know how people should spend their money?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I repeat!  What the fuck is wrong with you?  What the fuck does the price of and future availability of gasoline here in the United States  have to do with Chavez?
> 
> OK I get it...you cannot imagine your neighbors kicking in your door and taking everything including your life.  You probably have never been anywhere where that possibility is a constant probability.  Do you have any fucking idea how close we just came to THAT very reality as you fucking morons were holding 20 million already desperate Americans hostage so your precious billionaires wouldn't have to pay a fair share of the freight?
> 
> You obviously do not know much about human nature sport.  I've been in places where there are two pairs of machine gun armed police on EVERY FUCKING BLOCK.  FUCK!!! Never mind!!  you won't get it even when you are laying there dying on your front lawn and someone is pulling your gold teeth out of your mouth.   You think I am exaggerating?  I've seen it.  And not too very far from your boogyman Chavez.  You have no fucking idea what even you fine upstanding citizens are capable of when things get truly desperate.  I pity you dumb ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Crime rates in most areas are actually down with the sluggish economy.
Click to expand...


Is that what you call having NO money and you and your family are being evicted from your home?  Sluggish economy?  OK ..I see I have been wasting my time.  I will put you on ignore now because you are too stupid to even listen to good advice and your nonsense is giving me a headache..  bye bye.


----------



## Revere

Knock yourself out, creep.

Bad times have not caused waves of cime.


----------



## sitarro

ABikerSailor said:


> sitarro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Chevy folks came up with the Volt (which was production ready btw) in 2006.  They didn't release it until 2010.  Why?  Because up until then, nobody was interested in electric cars.
> 
> Honda as well as many other foreign car companies are coming up with electric cars, there is an increase in windfarms, and various stockyards as well as garbage dumps, are starting to harvest the methane that comes from those places.
> 
> Yep.........if big oil keeps doing what it's doing, they're gonna price themselves out of existence.
> 
> We can only hope..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much oil does the Navy use in a day to power all of those boats cruising from port to port.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on if it's a nuclear powered vessel or not.  All US Navy carriers are nuke power now.
> 
> And.......they're working on other ships as well.
Click to expand...


Obviously, but one friend told me about a medium sized vessel he worked on as a machinist, he claimed 60,000 gallons of diesel per day.


----------



## sitarro

uscitizen said:


> Bones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, I can't wait until Hubbert's peak oil curve is on the downward trajectory.  Considering pretty much all of America's infrastructure relies on oil, we're screwed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yep unlike Europe and other areas America was designed around cheap oil and the automobile.
> And we have gone away from mass transit vs towards it.
Click to expand...


Do you use mass transit?


----------



## uscitizen

sitarro said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, I can't wait until Hubbert's peak oil curve is on the downward trajectory.  Considering pretty much all of America's infrastructure relies on oil, we're screwed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yep unlike Europe and other areas America was designed around cheap oil and the automobile.
> And we have gone away from mass transit vs towards it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you use mass transit?
Click to expand...


I would if it were available here.  Heck Greyhound even dropped it's route thru here.  No bus or train station in the county seat.

Well to be fully honest I am pretty much wheelchairbound and do not travel much at all any more.


----------



## jeffrockit

ABikerSailor said:


> You know.........big oil should remember that the biggest advances in alternative energy came from the last time that gas hit 4.00/gal.
> 
> Me?   I'm glad that I got back on my Lemond bicycle this summer, and am even more happy that I can knock out 20 miles no problem, even at age 46.
> 
> I hope that this time the alternative energy make even bigger advances because of this and render gas and oil useless.



Yeah cause everyone lives within biking distance to their work
Great thoughts


----------



## DiveCon

Revere said:


> Where is the power in the grid coming from for all these electric cars?


coal and natural gas


----------



## Douger

Revere said:


> Under Barack Obama, the future of the United States is poverty.


So Cabbage Patch. Barry has full control over the worlds oil prices? Were you born an idiot or did you have to work at it ?


----------



## Douger

The main concern with the price of oil is what it does to the price of food.
There is a book out there called The Long Emergency. I suggest you murkins have someone read it and 'splaneded to you. 
Clusterfuck Nation: Comment on Current Events by the Author of "The Long Emergency"


----------



## Old Rocks

Combine the Hubbert Peak with the damage from AGW to agriculture, and one can see some real hard times for many nations. Even for an overextended, both militarily and economically, superpower.


----------



## zzzz

sitarro said:


> How much oil does the Navy use in a day to power all of those boats cruising from port to port.



In 2007 the US military used 117,000,000 barrels of oil. According to a Pentagon spokesman for every $10 rise in oil price the cost to the Military increases by $1,300,000,000 per year.

US military energy consumption- facts and figures | Energy Bulletin

Another source estimates 160,000,000 barrels of oil a year are used.

Military Oil Usage Statistics

Any way you put it when oil goes up it costs the US government al lot of money, and where is that money coming from? More and more from China. Just think what would happen if the world stopped buying our debt.


----------



## Old Rocks

Read about what we did to the British in the 1957 Suez Canal Crisis, and consider how much we already owe China.


----------



## editec

The moment things look like they're coming back, speculators start driving up the price of oil, thus depressing the economy.

This could go on for quite some time.

Eventually conservation and expansion of energy sources might help, of course, but those things take time to get online.

Until we change this fundamental factor driving our economic system I suspect we're reaching the limits of economic growth.


----------



## Mr. H.

"Speculators" make money whether oil goes up or down. Who drove oil to $10 back in ought-'99?


----------



## mdn2000

ABikerSailor said:


> What do you think the wind fields and solar fields are for?



There  to make the banks rich financing them, its to make the politicians rich after they get out of office through giving speeches for the regulations, laws, grants, subsidies, research money, guaranteed loans, new bureaucratic agencies supporting green energy.

Its to make Oil Companies rich selling the petrochemicals used in the production of fiberglass and carbon fiber, the fossil fuel used to produce cement for the foundations, oil companies get rich because more of their product is needed by people running trucks and trains to the mines for the raw material used to produce the worlds largest power plant that produces the least amount of power.

Electric companies get to raise the price of electricity because Green energy is more expensive, of course not everyone can pay this higher amount so now we will have rates for the rich, the upper middle class, the middle class, and special rates and programs for everyone else, all this with a government agency managing the laws that mandate this and monitoring the progress.

A huge increase in the size of government, the EPA now grows to enforce all the new laws. The Department of Energy has been growing for years, funneling money into private research groups and universities.

And on top of all this we must add the Lawyers and Judges that mitigate the law as well as every single site that is built, typically with lawsuits that follow for years after.

All so we can save foreign companies and governments that feed off our government subsidies that pay for their expensive piece of shit Green Energy.


----------



## Skull Pilot

I'll just register all my vehicles in the business's name and take the gas costs as a write off.


----------



## High_Gravity

$5 a gallon? wer totally fucked.


----------



## westwall

editec said:


> The moment things look like they're coming back, speculators start driving up the price of oil, thus depressing the economy.
> 
> This could go on for quite some time.
> 
> Eventually conservation and expansion of energy sources might help, of course, but those things take time to get online.
> 
> Until we change this fundamental factor driving our economic system I suspect we're reaching the limits of economic growth.






This is very true and makes me wonder if there might not be some external influence driving them.


----------



## Oddball

Old Rocks said:


> Combine the Hubbert Peak with the damage from AGW to agriculture, and one can see some real hard times for many nations. Even for an overextended, both militarily and economically, superpower.


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TDqvD34hEA[/ame]


----------



## mdn2000

How many different formulas mandated by different laws across the country drive up the cost. 

How MTBE, that drove up the costs as much as anything, not to mention letting Camel herders run countries and thus control oil they had no hand in producing.


----------



## uscitizen

Mr. H. said:


> "Speculators" make money whether oil goes up or down. Who drove oil to $10 back in ought-'99?



Some do, others lose money.  It is the nature of the game, everyone cannot win.


----------



## uscitizen

westwall said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> The moment things look like they're coming back, speculators start driving up the price of oil, thus depressing the economy.
> 
> This could go on for quite some time.
> 
> Eventually conservation and expansion of energy sources might help, of course, but those things take time to get online.
> 
> Until we change this fundamental factor driving our economic system I suspect we're reaching the limits of economic growth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is very true and makes me wonder if there might not be some external influence driving them.
Click to expand...


Umm yes an external influence called making money by producing no work.


----------



## Intense

uscitizen said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> The moment things look like they're coming back, speculators start driving up the price of oil, thus depressing the economy.
> 
> This could go on for quite some time.
> 
> Eventually conservation and expansion of energy sources might help, of course, but those things take time to get online.
> 
> Until we change this fundamental factor driving our economic system I suspect we're reaching the limits of economic growth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is very true and makes me wonder if there might not be some external influence driving them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Umm yes an external influence called making money by producing no work.
Click to expand...


Or OPEC is dicking around with us again? How's that moratorium doing?


----------



## uscitizen

Intense said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is very true and makes me wonder if there might not be some external influence driving them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umm yes an external influence called making money by producing no work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or OPEC is dicking around with us again? How's that moratorium doing?
Click to expand...


I dunno have they reduced production causing a shortage?


----------



## Intense

uscitizen said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm yes an external influence called making money by producing no work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or OPEC is dicking around with us again? How's that moratorium doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dunno have they reduced production causing a shortage?
Click to expand...


We have.


----------



## uscitizen

Intense said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or OPEC is dicking around with us again? How's that moratorium doing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno have they reduced production causing a shortage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have.
Click to expand...


We have?  the oil supply is low?
Or have "we" reduced refining to raise prices of refined products?

the Hugo gasoline seems to be the same price as the "US" gas does.


----------



## mdn2000

How about we are not building new refineries hence we buy more and more product that is refined and imported which costs us more.


----------



## uscitizen

We are building/have built a refinery in Wyoming I think it was to refine Tar Sands oil from Canada.

btw what ever happened to those refineries Bush promised to build on abandoned military base land?

I never heard about a single application being filed to build one.


----------



## Intense

uscitizen said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno have they reduced production causing a shortage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have?  the oil supply is low?
> Or have "we" reduced refining to raise prices of refined products?
> 
> the Hugo gasoline seems to be the same price as the "US" gas does.
Click to expand...


CHAMPAIGN, Ill.  The Obama administration's decision to maintain a ban on oil drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts is a mistake, according to a University of Illinois expert who wrote a six-volume book series on marine pollution.

"It's a ridiculous decision on the part of the Interior Department," said John W. Kindt, a professor of business and legal policy at Illinois. "The previous 180-day moratorium really hurt a lot of businesses. Well, a seven-year ban is going to sting even more."

Kindt says giving the oil companies a public spanking through a seven-year ban isn't going to solve our energy problems, and that unreasonably prohibiting offshore drilling will not only exacerbate the region's economic woes, it also will strengthen U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

"Our motto should be 'Drill, Baby, Drill' but 'Safely, Baby, Safely,' " he said. "We have two wars in the Middle East, and while we do need alternate sources of energy, in the interim we still need to safely develop our off-shore resources. That means we need to open up both the East Coast and California for drilling, although California is not going to like that. But we've got to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time."

According to Kindt, the author of "Marine Pollution and the Law of the Sea," a six-volume series that examines protecting the world's oceans while encouraging development of essential resources, the real villain in the new contretemps is not BP (formerly British Petroleum), but the Department of the Interior, with the recently announced seven-year moratorium serving as yet another example of what he says is the department's shortsightedness and incompetence.

Expert: Seven-year moratorium on gulf oil drilling an unwise decision | News Bureau | University of Illinois


----------



## DiveCon

uscitizen said:


> We are building/have built a refinery in Wyoming I think it was to refine Tar Sands oil from Canada.
> 
> btw *what ever happened to those refineries Bush promised to build on abandoned military base land?*
> 
> I never heard about a single application being filed to build one.


never heard that one
got a link?


----------



## Intense

uscitizen said:


> We are building/have built a refinery in Wyoming I think it was to refine Tar Sands oil from Canada.
> 
> btw what ever happened to those refineries Bush promised to build on abandoned military base land?
> 
> I never heard about a single application being filed to build one.



We need more Refineries.

Top U.S. Refineries - Energy Information Administration. Energy Rankings


----------



## JiggsCasey

Intense said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have?  the oil supply is low?
> Or have "we" reduced refining to raise prices of refined products?
> 
> the Hugo gasoline seems to be the same price as the "US" gas does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CHAMPAIGN, Ill. &#8211; The Obama administration's decision to maintain a ban on oil drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts is a mistake, according to a University of Illinois expert who wrote a six-volume book series on marine pollution.
> 
> "It's a ridiculous decision on the part of the Interior Department," said John W. Kindt, a professor of business and legal policy at Illinois. "The previous 180-day moratorium really hurt a lot of businesses. Well, a seven-year ban is going to sting even more."
> 
> Kindt says giving the oil companies a public spanking through a seven-year ban isn't going to solve our energy problems, and that unreasonably prohibiting offshore drilling will not only exacerbate the region's economic woes, it also will strengthen U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
> 
> "Our motto should be 'Drill, Baby, Drill' but 'Safely, Baby, Safely,' " he said. "We have two wars in the Middle East, and while we do need alternate sources of energy, in the interim we still need to safely develop our off-shore resources. That means we need to open up both the East Coast and California for drilling, although California is not going to like that. But we've got to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time."
> 
> According to Kindt, the author of "Marine Pollution and the Law of the Sea," a six-volume series that examines protecting the world's oceans while encouraging development of essential resources, the real villain in the new contretemps is not BP (formerly British Petroleum), but the Department of the Interior, with the recently announced seven-year moratorium serving as yet another example of what he says is the department's shortsightedness and incompetence.
> 
> Expert: Seven-year moratorium on gulf oil drilling an unwise decision | News Bureau | University of Illinois
Click to expand...


We don't drill off our shores because there is barely any oil off our shores. Certainly not enough to make the slightest dent in our 86 million barrel per day appetite (and growing).

That being said, if oil companies want to continue to bludgeon their profit margin building vast infrastructure for piddly kiddie pools of oil in our water, I think they should be allowed to do so. WITH abundant safety oversight and severe ramifications for screw ups. They'll learn soon enough there's barely any oil, as the USGS has known for decades.


----------



## Intense

> We don't drill off our shores because there is barely any oil off our shores. Certainly not enough to make much of a dent in our 86 million barrel per day appetite (and growing).
> 
> That being said, if oil companies want to continue to bludgeon their profit margin building vast infrastructure for piddly kiddie pools of oil in our water, I think they should be allowed to do so. WITH abundant safety oversight and severe ramifications for screw ups. They'll learn soon enough there's barely any oil, as we've known for decades.



We have partial agreement there. Why is China in the Gulf if there is so little there? After the Spill I got the impression that we have barely touched on it.


----------



## mdn2000

uscitizen said:


> We are building/have built a refinery in Wyoming I think it was to refine Tar Sands oil from Canada.
> 
> btw what ever happened to those refineries Bush promised to build on abandoned military base land?
> 
> I never heard about a single application being filed to build one.



Sinclair has two refineries in Wyoming, as far as i can tell both are well over twenty five years old. Maybe they modified a portion but no actual new refinery has been built in at least twenty five years.


----------



## mdn2000

Jiggs the expert, what a tired joke. Given the Gulf of Mexico is supplying over 30% of our oil and we are not producing the oil at half its potential there is enough proven reserves to keep pumping hundreds of years. Since drilling in the Gulf has begun its continually expanded. 

Hell, BP just suffered what is literally known or previously known as a "Gusher". 

Of course with Libya about to double the supply of oil they produce, Brazil producing oil with billions of dollars given by Obama, the world has more and more oil than ever before.

Oil Field Services: Libya Increases Proven Oil Reserves



> Libya Increases Proven Oil Reserves
> Source: Newswires 8/2/2010, Location: Africa
> Oil Field Services
> 
> Share |
> 
> Libya's proven crude oil reserves rose to 46 billion barrels in the first half of this year after adding 612 million barrels from new fields, local daily Oea said on Friday, quoting the country's top oil official. OPEC member Libya has the biggest crude oil reserves in Africa.
> 
> 'Libya's oil reserves will increase further in next months because the exploration efforts in the first half accounted for 40 percent of the hydrocarbons search programme for the year,' Oea quoted Shokri Ghanem as saying. 'We expect the discovery of 20 additional oil fields this year,' said Ghanem who is the chairman of Libya's National Oil Corporation (NOC) and top energy official of his country which does not have an oil minister.


----------



## HUGGY

mdn2000 said:


> Jiggs the expert, what a tired joke. Given the Gulf of Mexico is supplying over 30% of our oil and we are not producing the oil at half its potential there is enough *proven reserves to keep pumping hundreds of years*. Since drilling in the Gulf has begun its continually expanded.
> 
> Hell, BP just suffered what is literally known or previously known as a "Gusher".
> 
> Of course with Libya about to double the supply of oil they produce, Brazil producing oil with billions of dollars given by Obama, the world has more and more oil than ever before.
> 
> Oil Field Services: Libya Increases Proven Oil Reserves
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Libya Increases Proven Oil Reserves
> Source: Newswires 8/2/2010, Location: Africa
> Oil Field Services
> 
> Share |
> 
> Libya's proven crude oil reserves rose to 46 billion barrels in the first half of this year after adding 612 million barrels from new fields, local daily Oea said on Friday, quoting the country's top oil official. OPEC member Libya has the biggest crude oil reserves in Africa.
> 
> 'Libya's oil reserves will increase further in next months because the exploration efforts in the first half accounted for 40 percent of the hydrocarbons search programme for the year,' Oea quoted Shokri Ghanem as saying. 'We expect the discovery of 20 additional oil fields this year,' said Ghanem who is the chairman of Libya's National Oil Corporation (NOC) and top energy official of his country which does not have an oil minister.
Click to expand...


*proven reserves to keep pumping hundreds of years*

WOW!


----------



## Trajan

Intense said:


> That will be the end of the recovery.



there's a recovery?

damn it , you didn't wake me up~!!!!!


----------



## westwall

JiggsCasey said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have?  the oil supply is low?
> Or have "we" reduced refining to raise prices of refined products?
> 
> the Hugo gasoline seems to be the same price as the "US" gas does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CHAMPAIGN, Ill.  The Obama administration's decision to maintain a ban on oil drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts is a mistake, according to a University of Illinois expert who wrote a six-volume book series on marine pollution.
> 
> "It's a ridiculous decision on the part of the Interior Department," said John W. Kindt, a professor of business and legal policy at Illinois. "The previous 180-day moratorium really hurt a lot of businesses. Well, a seven-year ban is going to sting even more."
> 
> Kindt says giving the oil companies a public spanking through a seven-year ban isn't going to solve our energy problems, and that unreasonably prohibiting offshore drilling will not only exacerbate the region's economic woes, it also will strengthen U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
> 
> "Our motto should be 'Drill, Baby, Drill' but 'Safely, Baby, Safely,' " he said. "We have two wars in the Middle East, and while we do need alternate sources of energy, in the interim we still need to safely develop our off-shore resources. That means we need to open up both the East Coast and California for drilling, although California is not going to like that. But we've got to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time."
> 
> According to Kindt, the author of "Marine Pollution and the Law of the Sea," a six-volume series that examines protecting the world's oceans while encouraging development of essential resources, the real villain in the new contretemps is not BP (formerly British Petroleum), but the Department of the Interior, with the recently announced seven-year moratorium serving as yet another example of what he says is the department's shortsightedness and incompetence.
> 
> Expert: Seven-year moratorium on gulf oil drilling an unwise decision | News Bureau | University of Illinois
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't drill off our shores because there is barely any oil off our shores. Certainly not enough to make the slightest dent in our 86 million barrel per day appetite (and growing).
> 
> That being said, if oil companies want to continue to bludgeon their profit margin building vast infrastructure for piddly kiddie pools of oil in our water, I think they should be allowed to do so. WITH abundant safety oversight and severe ramifications for screw ups. They'll learn soon enough there's barely any oil, as the USGS has known for decades.
Click to expand...





Hmmmm China is drilling in the Gulf.  Russia's Gazprom is planing on drilling off of Florida,
the map in the link shows a whole hell of a lot of rigs and we don't own most of them.  Somebody's getting oil there so why isn't it us?

Oil Platforms in the Gulf: How Many and Who Owns Them? | Deep Sea News


----------



## Samson

hortysir said:


> Oil is already more than $5 a gallon.
> 
> Quaker State is $3.25 a quart.
> That's $13 a gallon



Its weird that you and I are the only ones here that know the difference between oil and gasoline.

Now I feel much more smug than usual.

It is the purpose of Message Boards.


----------



## Samson

Intense said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are building/have built a refinery in Wyoming I think it was to refine Tar Sands oil from Canada.
> 
> btw what ever happened to those refineries Bush promised to build on abandoned military base land?
> 
> I never heard about a single application being filed to build one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need more Refineries.
> 
> Top U.S. Refineries - Energy Information Administration. Energy Rankings
Click to expand...


Let's build one in Elmhurst, NY.


----------



## RallyxPoint

thats if there is any oil lefted at all...


----------



## Samson

uscitizen said:


> We are building/have built a refinery in Wyoming I think it was to refine Tar Sands oil from Canada.
> 
> btw what ever happened to those refineries Bush promised to build on abandoned military base land?
> 
> I never heard about a single application being filed to build one.





No.

The Canadians (Suncor) want to buy a refinery in Cheyenne to process "Tar Sand Oil" (aka Syncrude), and they have bought a refinery in Denver.

Refining Oil is not a terribly profitable business, and it takes about 20 years in the USA just to file all the EPA "Environmental Impact Studies."

There are 4 refineries in WY, and several in MT. All have been debottlenecked and expanded, but not necessarily to produce more gasoline. Much of the "expansion" is to produce "Ultra Low Sulfur" deisel at 10 ppm as EPA regulations dictated. The other major expansions have been to tighten Wastewater quality (the water returned from the refinery is better quality than the water entering), and to produce more Coke (and deisel) instead of asphalt (dramatically increasing the cost of building roads).


----------



## mdn2000

HUGGY said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jiggs the expert, what a tired joke. Given the Gulf of Mexico is supplying over 30% of our oil and we are not producing the oil at half its potential there is enough *proven reserves to keep pumping hundreds of years*. Since drilling in the Gulf has begun its continually expanded.
> 
> Hell, BP just suffered what is literally known or previously known as a "Gusher".
> 
> Of course with Libya about to double the supply of oil they produce, Brazil producing oil with billions of dollars given by Obama, the world has more and more oil than ever before.
> 
> Oil Field Services: Libya Increases Proven Oil Reserves
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Libya Increases Proven Oil Reserves
> Source: Newswires 8/2/2010, Location: Africa
> Oil Field Services
> 
> Share |
> 
> Libya's proven crude oil reserves rose to 46 billion barrels in the first half of this year after adding 612 million barrels from new fields, local daily Oea said on Friday, quoting the country's top oil official. OPEC member Libya has the biggest crude oil reserves in Africa.
> 
> 'Libya's oil reserves will increase further in next months because the exploration efforts in the first half accounted for 40 percent of the hydrocarbons search programme for the year,' Oea quoted Shokri Ghanem as saying. 'We expect the discovery of 20 additional oil fields this year,' said Ghanem who is the chairman of Libya's National Oil Corporation (NOC) and top energy official of his country which does not have an oil minister.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *proven reserves to keep pumping hundreds of years*
> 
> WOW!
Click to expand...


I added that, figured as long as there is no proof to the contrary.


----------



## uscitizen

This is what I remembered reading about a new refinery.  I was incorerect it was South Dakota, not Wyoming.

South Dakota Voters Approve What Could Be First New U.S. Oil Refinery in Decades
Wednesday, June 04, 2008  


PrintShareThisELK POINT, S.D. &#8212;  Voters in Union County on Tuesday approved rezoning for what would be the first new U.S. oil refinery in more than 30 years.

With all 13 precincts reporting, 3,932 voters, or 58 percent, endorsed their county commission's
 rezoning of almost 3,300 acres north of Elk Point for the $10 billion refinery while 2,855, or 42 percent, opposed it.

South Dakota Voters Approve What Could Be First New U.S. Oil Refinery in Decades - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum - FOXNews.com

It appears to have suffered from a not in my backyard situation.


----------



## DiveCon

uscitizen said:


> This is what I remembered reading about a new refinery.  I was incorerect it was South Dakota, not Wyoming.
> 
> South Dakota Voters Approve What Could Be First New U.S. Oil Refinery in Decades
> Wednesday, June 04, 2008
> 
> 
> PrintShareThisELK POINT, S.D. &#8212;  Voters in Union County on Tuesday approved rezoning for what would be the first new U.S. oil refinery in more than 30 years.
> 
> With all 13 precincts reporting, 3,932 voters, or 58 percent, endorsed their county commission's
> rezoning of almost 3,300 acres north of Elk Point for the $10 billion refinery while 2,855, or 42 percent, opposed it.
> 
> South Dakota Voters Approve What Could Be First New U.S. Oil Refinery in Decades - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum - FOXNews.com
> 
> It appears to have suffered from a not in my backyard situation.


so, even though it had voter support, it still didnt get built


----------



## uscitizen

DiveCon said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I remembered reading about a new refinery.  I was incorerect it was South Dakota, not Wyoming.
> 
> South Dakota Voters Approve What Could Be First New U.S. Oil Refinery in Decades
> Wednesday, June 04, 2008
> 
> 
> PrintShareThisELK POINT, S.D.   Voters in Union County on Tuesday approved rezoning for what would be the first new U.S. oil refinery in more than 30 years.
> 
> With all 13 precincts reporting, 3,932 voters, or 58 percent, endorsed their county commission's
> rezoning of almost 3,300 acres north of Elk Point for the $10 billion refinery while 2,855, or 42 percent, opposed it.
> 
> South Dakota Voters Approve What Could Be First New U.S. Oil Refinery in Decades - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum - FOXNews.com
> 
> It appears to have suffered from a not in my backyard situation.
> 
> 
> 
> so, even though it had voter support, it still didnt get built
Click to expand...


Marginal voter support.

The petro industry does not want to invest in any new refineries.
It would drop their profit.


----------



## Care4all

also, president bush offered up our closed military bases in 2005 for new refineries to avoid the NIMB Yarders, but STILL none built.....

Defense.gov News Article: Bush Proposes Oil Refineries on Closed Military Bases


----------



## uscitizen

None on the right want to talk about that Care.
They will just reply BOOOOSH.

As I recall he pulled back on that really quickly after oil companies talked with him.


----------



## DiveCon

uscitizen said:


> None on the right want to talk about that Care.
> They will just reply BOOOOSH.
> 
> As I recall he pulled back on that really quickly after oil companies talked with him.


proof?


----------



## DiveCon

Care4all said:


> also, president bush offered up our closed military bases in 2005 for new refineries to avoid the NIMB Yarders, but STILL none built.....
> 
> Defense.gov News Article: Bush Proposes Oil Refineries on Closed Military Bases


that doesnt prove a damn thing


----------



## Old Rocks

Of course it does not. If facts disagree with your version of the "Way things ought to be", ignore the facts, or belittle anyone that presents them with mindless derision. The Conservative way, avoid thinking at all costs.


----------



## Old Rocks

DiveCon said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I remembered reading about a new refinery.  I was incorerect it was South Dakota, not Wyoming.
> 
> South Dakota Voters Approve What Could Be First New U.S. Oil Refinery in Decades
> Wednesday, June 04, 2008
> 
> 
> PrintShareThisELK POINT, S.D.   Voters in Union County on Tuesday approved rezoning for what would be the first new U.S. oil refinery in more than 30 years.
> 
> With all 13 precincts reporting, 3,932 voters, or 58 percent, endorsed their county commission's
> rezoning of almost 3,300 acres north of Elk Point for the $10 billion refinery while 2,855, or 42 percent, opposed it.
> 
> South Dakota Voters Approve What Could Be First New U.S. Oil Refinery in Decades - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum - FOXNews.com
> 
> It appears to have suffered from a not in my backyard situation.
> 
> 
> 
> so, even though it had voter support, it still didnt get built
Click to expand...


Well, dang, those 3,932 pinch pennies didn't put up the cash for that new refinery. What a bunch of cheapskates.


----------



## DiveCon

Old Rocks said:


> Of course it does not. If facts disagree with your version of the "Way things ought to be", ignore the facts, or belittle anyone that presents them with mindless derision. The Conservative way, avoid thinking at all costs.


idiot, thats YOU way, not the conservative way
you are too fucking stupid to know


----------



## Old Rocks

OK, they got the votes, why was not the refinery built? You still haven't answered that.


----------



## Intense

Old Rocks said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I remembered reading about a new refinery.  I was incorerect it was South Dakota, not Wyoming.
> 
> South Dakota Voters Approve What Could Be First New U.S. Oil Refinery in Decades
> Wednesday, June 04, 2008
> 
> 
> PrintShareThisELK POINT, S.D.   Voters in Union County on Tuesday approved rezoning for what would be the first new U.S. oil refinery in more than 30 years.
> 
> With all 13 precincts reporting, 3,932 voters, or 58 percent, endorsed their county commission's
> rezoning of almost 3,300 acres north of Elk Point for the $10 billion refinery while 2,855, or 42 percent, opposed it.
> 
> South Dakota Voters Approve What Could Be First New U.S. Oil Refinery in Decades - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum - FOXNews.com
> 
> It appears to have suffered from a not in my backyard situation.
> 
> 
> 
> so, even though it had voter support, it still didnt get built
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, dang, those 3,932 pinch pennies didn't put up the cash for that new refinery. What a bunch of cheapskates.
Click to expand...


You can't have it both ways, either shit or get off the pot. Stop blaming Bush and Republicans for everything. It really makes you look foolish.




ELK POINT, SD - The ailing economy and declining demand for oil have lead some to question the future of a South Dakota oil refinery in Union County. 

At a debate last month both candidates for South Dakota governor said they had their doubts about the refinery, and if it would ever be built. 

Thousands of acres of farmland in central Union County are still growing beans and corn. They're fields that were supposed to be plowed under this year to make way for the oil refinery. 

"At the end of the day our goal hasn't changed. We're going to create a world-class facility that's going to bring over 18 hundred permanent jobs to Union County and the region," Hyperion project executive Preston Phillips said. 

Hyperion Resources out of Dallas, Texas wanted to break ground by now on the country's first new oil refinery in more than three decades. But, Phillips says like many projects across the country the refinery has been hindered by the economy. 

"We wanted to start construction in 2010. But, with the financial crisis that really has put the financial markets in a great amount of uncertainty, and because of that it slowed down our project just like a bunch of other projects across the country," Phillips said. 
The project has also been slowed down by court cases and new EPA rules. The Sierra Club is one of the organizations fighting the refinery. 

"The state agency and our governor have focused almost exclusively on the jobs and the economic activity aspects of Hyperion, and have dismissed the environmental and health problems that are certainly related to a large oil refinery," Peter Carrels of the South Dakota Sierra Club said. 

The Sierra Club is involved with a lawsuit over the project. It's not only concerned about the pollution the new refinery could cause in South Dakota, but they are also concerned about the global impact. Hyperion's proposed refinery will use Canadian oil from the oil sands in Alberta. 

"Tar sands as it turns out has a very high carbon-dioxide pollutant emission, and that really puts them in a difficult position with the new thinking about carbon-dioxide pollution," Carrels said. 

Carrels says it takes more energy and more pollution to pull Canadian oil out of the ground. And, with more attention on global warming and the possibility of more restrictions on Canadian oil sands development, Hyperion's proposal could be risky. 

"The conditions are fairly sketchy I would say for a tar sands oil refinery," Carrels said. 

But, Hyperion is sticking to it's plans saying Canadian crude oil is the best option for its refinery project. 

KELOLAND.com | Sioux Falls News & Weather, South Dakota News & Weather, Minnesota and Iowa News


----------



## Intense

Old Rocks said:


> OK, they got the votes, why was not the refinery built? You still haven't answered that.



Gee, maybe you could do your home work.


----------



## mdn2000

Why no refineries, simple, the Liberal/Marxist will not allow it. Bush was never about the USA, what did Bush do other than where a "R" on his lapel.

Insurance, wonder what that costs, with all the Lawyers involved.

They build refineries on ships these days to avoid any countries laws and regulations that strangle the industry.


----------



## Intense

mdn2000 said:


> Why no refineries, simple, the Liberal/Marxist will not allow it. Bush was never about the USA, what did Bush do other than where a "R" on his lapel.
> 
> Insurance, wonder what that costs, with all the Lawyers involved.
> 
> They build refineries on ships these days to avoid any countries laws and regulations that strangle the industry.



Hey, if Ship Refineries are the future, it is what it is. There may be some good in that.


----------



## JiggsCasey

mdn2000 said:


> Jiggs the expert, what a tired joke. Given the Gulf of Mexico is supplying over 30% of our oil and we are not producing the oil at half its potential there is enough proven reserves to keep pumping hundreds of years. Since drilling in the Gulf has begun its continually expanded.



30%???? Link please.

Half its potential??? Link please.


----------



## editec

If energy prices increase 40% in the next year or two (as predicted) this economy is totally hosed, folks.

That will do good things for the Republican bid for the oval office, though.

Then, assuming that the rapidly rising price wasn't contrived precisely to get O out of office,i.e.,  if that price continues at $5 range, the Republicans can enjoy running the nation during its continued decline into national bankruptsy.

What fun, eh?


----------



## Intense

Trajan said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> That will be the end of the recovery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there's a recovery?
> 
> damn it , you didn't wake me up~!!!!!
Click to expand...


We are to some effect avoiding the downward spiral. $4.50 to $5.00 at the pump will have the same effect to the economy, as it did last time.  Only this time Bush isn't there as a Scapegoat.


----------



## mdn2000

There is always the Democrat's strategic oil reserves, last time they gave it to Al Gore.


----------



## Samson

uscitizen said:


> None on the right want to talk about that Care.
> They will just reply BOOOOSH.
> 
> As I recall he pulled back on that really quickly after oil companies talked with him.



Would that recollection also be how you put a new refinery in WY?

Hey, if OBAMA want to donate a defunct military installation to build a fucking refinery, then what's holding him back?

I hope you keep making every fucking issue on the planet a Bush Conspiracy. It will play very well into the Romney 2012 Presidential Run.

Oil Companies are heavily investing profits in alternative fuels, not building refineries which will be largely obsolete once their payout period is over.


----------



## Samson

editec said:


> If energy prices increase 40% in the next year or two (as predicted) this economy is totally hosed, folks.
> 
> That will do good things for the Republican bid for the oval office, though.
> 
> Then, assuming that the rapidly rising price wasn't contrived precisely to get O out of office,i.e.,  if that price continues at $5 range, the Republicans can enjoy running the nation during its continued decline into national bankruptsy.
> 
> What fun, eh?



If FDR could enjoy it, then why shouldn't a Repub?


----------



## uscitizen

DiveCon said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> also, president bush offered up our closed military bases in 2005 for new refineries to avoid the NIMB Yarders, but STILL none built.....
> 
> Defense.gov News Article: Bush Proposes Oil Refineries on Closed Military Bases
> 
> 
> 
> that doesnt prove a damn thing
Click to expand...


Booosh!


LMAO

I told ya they did not want to talk about it.  But of course they did not really support Booosh either.


----------



## Samson

uscitizen said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> also, president bush offered up our closed military bases in 2005 for new refineries to avoid the NIMB Yarders, but STILL none built.....
> 
> Defense.gov News Article: Bush Proposes Oil Refineries on Closed Military Bases
> 
> 
> 
> that doesnt prove a damn thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Booosh!
> 
> 
> LMAO
> 
> I told ya they did not want to talk about it.  But of course they did not really support Booosh either.
Click to expand...


I'll talk about it: Why hasn't Obama offered a military base to build a refinery?

idjot


----------



## Care4all

i think president bush's effort to get around those who did not want a refinery in their back yard, was an excellent idea....

but from what i can see so far, the refineries DID NOT take him up on it since he offered it in 2005.

so, logic comes in to play....the refineries have nothing to GAIN by adding refineries.


----------



## Samson

Care4all said:


> i think president bush's effort to get around those who did not want a refinery in their back yard, was an excellent idea....
> 
> but from what i can see so far, the refineries DID NOT take him up on it since he offered it in 2005.
> 
> so, logic comes in to play....the refineries have nothing to GAIN by adding refineries.



"refineries ...adding refineries?"

What is that supposed to mean?


Is there a law against anyone except ExxonMobil, et al building a refinery?

No.

In fact, there are laws preventing the collusion of existing refiners against anyone wanting to enter the market.

You Bush Conspiracy Theorists need to post in the Conspiracy Forum, along with the "Peak Oilist Doomsdayers, Alien Abduction Crazies, and Elvis Sighters.


----------



## Care4all

Samson said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> i think president bush's effort to get around those who did not want a refinery in their back yard, was an excellent idea....
> 
> but from what i can see so far, the refineries DID NOT take him up on it since he offered it in 2005.
> 
> so, logic comes in to play....the refineries have nothing to GAIN by adding refineries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "refineries ...adding refineries?"
> 
> What is that supposed to mean?
> 
> 
> Is there a law against anyone except ExxonMobil, et al building a refinery?
> 
> No.
> 
> In fact, there are laws preventing the collusion of existing refiners against anyone wanting to enter the market.
> 
> You Bush Conspiracy Theorists need to post in the Conspiracy Forum, along with the "Peak Oilist Doomsdayers, Alien Abduction Crazies, and Elvis Sighters.
Click to expand...


Excuse me?  I have nothing bad to say about president Bush regarding this measure of his.....I believe it is a good idea!

The refineries have nothing to gain by adding more refineries because it will bring their profit margin DOWN....the more refineries, the lower the cost of gasoline....keeping refineries limited, keeps the price of gasoline higher....  supply and demand theory....increased supply, lowers the cost of any product....limited supply, keeps prices higher.


----------



## Samson

Care4all said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> i think president bush's effort to get around those who did not want a refinery in their back yard, was an excellent idea....
> 
> but from what i can see so far, the refineries DID NOT take him up on it since he offered it in 2005.
> 
> so, logic comes in to play....the refineries have nothing to GAIN by adding refineries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "refineries ...adding refineries?"
> 
> What is that supposed to mean?
> 
> 
> Is there a law against anyone except ExxonMobil, et al building a refinery?
> 
> No.
> 
> In fact, there are laws preventing the collusion of existing refiners against anyone wanting to enter the market.
> 
> You Bush Conspiracy Theorists need to post in the Conspiracy Forum, along with the "Peak Oilist Doomsdayers, Alien Abduction Crazies, and Elvis Sighters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse me?  I have nothing bad to say about president Bush regarding this measure of his.....I believe it is a good idea!
> 
> The refineries have nothing to gain by adding more refineries because it will bring their profit margin DOWN....the more refineries, the lower the cost of gasoline....keeping refineries limited, keeps the price of gasoline higher....  supply and demand theory....increased supply, lowers the cost of any product....limited supply, keeps prices higher.
Click to expand...


Excuse ME, but "refineries" is not an entity.

Let's try to put it this way: Shoe Manufactures have nothing to gain by building another Shoe Factory, so they are driving up the price of shoes, and raking in higher and higher profits......

Why doesn't someone, Care4All Industries, which, let's say, manufactures Octopron Novelty Products, build a shoe factory?


----------



## Care4all

Samson said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> "refineries ...adding refineries?"
> 
> What is that supposed to mean?
> 
> 
> Is there a law against anyone except ExxonMobil, et al building a refinery?
> 
> No.
> 
> In fact, there are laws preventing the collusion of existing refiners against anyone wanting to enter the market.
> 
> You Bush Conspiracy Theorists need to post in the Conspiracy Forum, along with the "Peak Oilist Doomsdayers, Alien Abduction Crazies, and Elvis Sighters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me?  I have nothing bad to say about president Bush regarding this measure of his.....I believe it is a good idea!
> 
> The refineries have nothing to gain by adding more refineries because it will bring their profit margin DOWN....the more refineries, the lower the cost of gasoline....keeping refineries limited, keeps the price of gasoline higher....  supply and demand theory....increased supply, lowers the cost of any product....limited supply, keeps prices higher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse ME, but "refineries" is not an entity.
> 
> Let's try to put it this way: Shoe Manufactures have nothing to gain by building another Shoe Factory, so they are driving up the price of shoes, and raking in higher and higher profits......
> 
> Why doesn't someone, Care4All Industries, which, let's say, manufactures Octopron Novelty Products, build a shoe factory?
Click to expand...


expound on that please....  

Are you saying existing refineries prevent new refineries from springing up, or laws on the books prevent new refineries from forming?  And what does this have to do with the existing refineries not expanding their own refineries?


----------



## Intense

Samson said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> "refineries ...adding refineries?"
> 
> What is that supposed to mean?
> 
> 
> Is there a law against anyone except ExxonMobil, et al building a refinery?
> 
> No.
> 
> In fact, there are laws preventing the collusion of existing refiners against anyone wanting to enter the market.
> 
> You Bush Conspiracy Theorists need to post in the Conspiracy Forum, along with the "Peak Oilist Doomsdayers, Alien Abduction Crazies, and Elvis Sighters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me?  I have nothing bad to say about president Bush regarding this measure of his.....I believe it is a good idea!
> 
> The refineries have nothing to gain by adding more refineries because it will bring their profit margin DOWN....the more refineries, the lower the cost of gasoline....keeping refineries limited, keeps the price of gasoline higher....  supply and demand theory....increased supply, lowers the cost of any product....limited supply, keeps prices higher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse ME, but "refineries" is not an entity.
> 
> Let's try to put it this way: Shoe Manufactures have nothing to gain by building another Shoe Factory, so they are driving up the price of shoes, and raking in higher and higher profits......
> 
> Why doesn't someone, Care4All Industries, which, let's say, manufactures Octopron Novelty Products, build a shoe factory?
Click to expand...


Octopron Vibrating Edible Sex Shoe toy's, 8 to a pack?


----------



## DiveCon

uscitizen said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> also, president bush offered up our closed military bases in 2005 for new refineries to avoid the NIMB Yarders, but STILL none built.....
> 
> Defense.gov News Article: Bush Proposes Oil Refineries on Closed Military Bases
> 
> 
> 
> that doesnt prove a damn thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Booosh!
> 
> 
> LMAO
> 
> I told ya they did not want to talk about it.  But of course they did not really support Booosh either.
Click to expand...

buillshit
that doesnt prove what was claimed and i dont give a fuck about bush


----------



## DiveCon

Care4all said:


> i think president bush's effort to get around those who did not want a refinery in their back yard, was an excellent idea....
> 
> but from what i can see so far, the refineries DID NOT take him up on it since he offered it in 2005.
> 
> so, logic comes in to play....the refineries have nothing to GAIN by adding refineries.


but you have not posted any PROOF that the refineries were what stopped it
your link was only to the OFFER and had nothing about what happened AFTER that


----------



## DiveCon

Care4all said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me?  I have nothing bad to say about president Bush regarding this measure of his.....I believe it is a good idea!
> 
> The refineries have nothing to gain by adding more refineries because it will bring their profit margin DOWN....the more refineries, the lower the cost of gasoline....keeping refineries limited, keeps the price of gasoline higher....  supply and demand theory....increased supply, lowers the cost of any product....limited supply, keeps prices higher.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse ME, but "refineries" is not an entity.
> 
> Let's try to put it this way: Shoe Manufactures have nothing to gain by building another Shoe Factory, so they are driving up the price of shoes, and raking in higher and higher profits......
> 
> Why doesn't someone, Care4All Industries, which, let's say, manufactures Octopron Novelty Products, build a shoe factory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> expound on that please....
> 
> Are you saying existing refineries prevent new refineries from springing up, or laws on the books prevent new refineries from forming?  And what does this have to do with the existing refineries not expanding their own refineries?
Click to expand...

no, that is actually what YOU are claiming, he is saying the exact opposite


----------



## Toro

Care4all said:


> i think president bush's effort to get around those who did not want a refinery in their back yard, was an excellent idea....
> 
> but from what i can see so far, the refineries DID NOT take him up on it since he offered it in 2005.
> 
> so, logic comes in to play....the refineries have nothing to GAIN by adding refineries.



The lack of refiners is overblown.  There hasn't been a new refinery in this country in what, 40 years?  Yet, refining capacity in this country has consistently grown as refiners have upgraded their facilities over the years.

Refining has historically been a horrible business.  They made a lot of money for about five years earlier in the decade but the industry as a whole did not earn its cost of capital for decades.


----------



## Samson

Care4all said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me?  I have nothing bad to say about president Bush regarding this measure of his.....I believe it is a good idea!
> 
> The refineries have nothing to gain by adding more refineries because it will bring their profit margin DOWN....the more refineries, the lower the cost of gasoline....keeping refineries limited, keeps the price of gasoline higher....  supply and demand theory....increased supply, lowers the cost of any product....limited supply, keeps prices higher.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse ME, but "refineries" is not an entity.
> 
> Let's try to put it this way: Shoe Manufactures have nothing to gain by building another Shoe Factory, so they are driving up the price of shoes, and raking in higher and higher profits......
> 
> Why doesn't someone, Care4All Industries, which, let's say, manufactures Octopron Novelty Products, build a shoe factory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> expound on that please....
> 
> Are you saying existing refineries prevent new refineries from springing up, or laws on the books prevent new refineries from forming?  And what does this have to do with the existing refineries not expanding their own refineries?
Click to expand...




No YOU are saying "refineries have nothing to gain by adding more refineries because it will bring their profit margin DOWN."

I AM saying that there isn't enough profitability in oil refining to justify _ANY_ new refining capacity.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Old Rocks said:


> This is what the Conservatives want. Make sure that all the wealth goes to the very wealthy, whether they are here or abroad.


This is pure partisan bigotry, abject ignorance, or both.


----------



## HUGGY

M14 Shooter said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what the Conservatives want. Make sure that all the wealth goes to the very wealthy, whether they are here or abroad.
> 
> 
> 
> This is pure partisan bigotry, abject ignorance, or both.
Click to expand...


Or the truth.  They support the dumbest most anti average American representatives that get MOST of their re-election war chests from those whose only interest is to siphon off as much of Americas wealth as humanly possible leaving the rest of us to fight over the scraps.


----------



## Old Rocks

M14 Shooter said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what the Conservatives want. Make sure that all the wealth goes to the very wealthy, whether they are here or abroad.
> 
> 
> 
> This is pure partisan bigotry, abject ignorance, or both.
Click to expand...


Really? The First Responders Bill. Paid for by a minor tax on the untaxed corperate profits leaving the US. But the Republicans would rather see Americans who responded to 9-11 die bankrupt than see very wealthy foreign coperations taxed.

And they chose to hold up funds that amount to about 40 billion for the unemployed, until the very wealthy were given another 200 billion for sure, and nearly a trillion if the extended tax break is made permanent, as they so desire.

Anything at all that would help the average citizen has been voted against by the Conservatives, while anything at all that would increase the wealth of the already very wealthy has been pushed by the Republican Party. Just a fact.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Old Rocks said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what the Conservatives want. Make sure that all the wealth goes to the very wealthy, whether they are here or abroad.
> 
> 
> 
> This is pure partisan bigotry, abject ignorance, or both.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?
Click to expand...

Yes.   If you knew anything about conservatives, you'd know that they want EVERYONE to succeeed to the point where EVERYONE can provide for themselves.  Just a fact.

So, I'll let you decide for yourself if your statement was made out of ignorance or bigotry.


----------



## DiveCon

M14 Shooter said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is pure partisan bigotry, abject ignorance, or both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.   If you knew anything about conservatives, you'd know that they want EVERYONE to succeeed to the point where EVERYONE can provide for themselves.  Just a fact.
> 
> So, I'll let you decide for yourself if your statement was made out of ignorance or bigotry.
Click to expand...

more likely out of hyper partisan delusions


----------



## DiveCon

Old Rocks said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what the Conservatives want. Make sure that all the wealth goes to the very wealthy, whether they are here or abroad.
> 
> 
> 
> This is pure partisan bigotry, abject ignorance, or both.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? The First Responders Bill. Paid for by a minor tax on the untaxed corperate profits leaving the US. But the Republicans would rather see Americans who responded to 9-11 die bankrupt than see very wealthy foreign coperations taxed.
> 
> And they chose to hold up funds that amount to about 40 billion for the unemployed, until the very wealthy were given another 200 billion for sure, and nearly a trillion if the extended tax break is made permanent, as they so desire.
> 
> Anything at all that would help the average citizen has been voted against by the Conservatives, while anything at all that would increase the wealth of the already very wealthy has been pushed by the Republican Party. Just a fact.
Click to expand...

why not pay for it the way the GOP wanted, by using already appropriated funds that were sitting unused


----------



## gunnyrogers55

America needs to become dependent on our own oil reserve that are all over this country...You can have your crappy hybrids and whatever the hell you want o make you feel better about yourself but i sell cars and let me tell you ..the disposing of your lithium ion powered batteries in your precious prius does more damage to the environment then oil does.. fossil fuels are the way to go and will be until we find a power that is close to it and not a battery , hydrogen , or anything else....

p.s. hows e85 been doing for everyone? that was suppose to help us to...flex fuel what a joke.


----------



## Bones

gunnyrogers55 said:


> America needs to become dependent on our own oil reserve that are all over this country...You can have your crappy hybrids and whatever the hell you want o make you feel better about yourself but i sell cars and let me tell you ..the disposing of your lithium ion powered batteries in your precious prius does more damage to the environment then oil does.. fossil fuels are the way to go and will be until we find a power that is close to it and not a battery , hydrogen , or anything else....


When comparing the amount of petrol the United States consumes to the amount of oil reserves they have, you'll notice that those resources will be gobbled up in such a short period of time that the drilling will not have been worth it.

It's time to face the fact that peak oil has arrived, the population of Earth is out of control and the only way to prevent disaster is to find a way to stop using oil yet maintain our way of life.  Though since the last suggestion is an impossibility and considering the United States entire infrastructure relies on oil, we're most likely going to be utterly hosed in the near future.


----------



## editec

Bones these people are having too much fun trying to score partisan points to much care about the fact that the cost of energy will screw their nation.

I'm becoming convinced that partisans (from both teams) are basically traitors to the nation.

The put their own goofy parties ahead of the nation both claim to love.


----------



## Samson

Bones said:


> gunnyrogers55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> America needs to become dependent on our own oil reserve that are all over this country...You can have your crappy hybrids and whatever the hell you want o make you feel better about yourself but i sell cars and let me tell you ..the disposing of your lithium ion powered batteries in your precious prius does more damage to the environment then oil does.. fossil fuels are the way to go and will be until we find a power that is close to it and not a battery , hydrogen , or anything else....
> 
> 
> 
> When comparing the amount of petrol the United States consumes to the amount of oil reserves they have, you'll notice that those resources will be gobbled up in such a short period of time that the drilling will not have been worth it.
> 
> It's time to face the fact that peak oil has arrived, the population of Earth is out of control and the only way to prevent disaster is to find a way to stop using oil yet maintain our way of life.  Though since the last suggestion is an impossibility and considering the United States entire infrastructure relies on oil, we're most likely going to be utterly hosed in the near future.
Click to expand...




If "the drilling is not worth it," then it won't be done.


----------



## Mr. Sauerkraut

we´re paying more than 7 $ per gallon right now. Drive gas saving cars and you haven´t a problem.


----------



## Samson

Mr. Sauerkraut said:


> we´re paying more than 7 $ per gallon right now. Drive gas saving cars and you haven´t a problem.



Walk, or buy a horse.


----------



## Mr. Sauerkraut

Samson said:


> Mr. Sauerkraut said:
> 
> 
> 
> we´re paying more than 7 $ per gallon right now. Drive gas saving cars and you haven´t a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Walk, or buy a horse.
Click to expand...


going back? No, better idea:


----------



## High_Gravity

The only idea I can think of is move closer to where your job is, close enough where it is a short drive or maybe even close enough to where you walk to work, several people at my job do that. If theres a grocery store close by as well your set, you won't really need to drive anywhere. The people that choose to work in the city but live an hour away in the suburbs are going to get fucked by these high ass gas prices.


----------



## DiveCon

Mr. Sauerkraut said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Sauerkraut said:
> 
> 
> 
> we´re paying more than 7 $ per gallon right now. Drive gas saving cars and you haven´t a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Walk, or buy a horse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> going back? No, better idea:
Click to expand...

would be kinda hard to go on a date in that


----------



## HUGGY

We need bold leadership now!  If gas hits $5 a gallon this year some smart candidate should declare that he or she will nationalize our oil as the highest priority to our security and our economic future.  Now before some of you fuckwits cry "communism" I'll answer that with "Go fuck your stupid willfully ignorant traitor selves".  

If we are going to maintain our lead and presence in this world we have to assert ourselves and claim what is ours.  

We "claim" exceptional ism when it suits us to invade countries on the other side of the planet  when ever we want.  

The only way to guarantee costs be controlled in business is lower the cost of doing business.  One of the biggest costs is fuel and energy.  

After the traitors AKA the corporations that sent our manufacturing jobs to other countries have shown their true colors as far as I an concerned they have not a damn thing coming.  This is war.  In war one must do EVERYTHING in one's power to win.  That is how we beat the AXIS in WWII in three and a half years.  We played full court press and used every weapon at our disposal.  

Were we "communists" by rationing fuel during the big one?  Were we socialists by nationalizing commodities such as copper and rubber?  

The free ride is OVER for the speculators on critical commodities.  Anyone caught trying to manipulate a commodity of national security importance should be arrested and put in prison.

You stupid greedy assholes that want to speculate on pork bellies and orange juice futures have at it.  You so much as think about profiting again on a commodity that involves our national security and you will be enjoying your last years with your celly Bubba.

Just sayin....  Grow some balls people.  It's still OUR world if we are not ready to give it away.


----------



## Mr. Sauerkraut

Volkswagen "1 Liter Car". This thing drives 62,5 miles with 1 Liter of fuel or 237,5 miles per gallon. No kidding. 

Demand it and we build it.


----------



## Mr. H.

HUGGY said:


> We need bold leadership now!  If gas hits $5 a gallon this year some smart candidate should declare that he or she will nationalize our oil as the highest priority to our security and our economic future.  Now before some of you fuckwits cry "communism" I'll answer that with "Go fuck your stupid willfully ignorant traitor selves".
> 
> If we are going to maintain our lead and presence in this world we have to assert ourselves and claim what is ours.
> 
> We "claim" exceptional ism when it suits us to invade countries on the other side of the planet  when ever we want.
> 
> The only way to guarantee costs be controlled in business is lower the cost of doing business.  One of the biggest costs is fuel and energy.
> 
> After the traitors AKA the corporations that sent our manufacturing jobs to other countries have shown their true colors as far as I an concerned they have not a damn thing coming.  This is war.  In war one must do EVERYTHING in one's power to win.  That is how we beat the AXIS in WWII in three and a half years.  We played full court press and used every weapon at our disposal.
> 
> Were we "communists" by rationing fuel during the big one?  Were we socialists by nationalizing commodities such as copper and rubber?
> 
> The free ride is OVER for the speculators on critical commodities.  Anyone caught trying to manipulate a commodity of national security importance should be arrested and put in prison.
> 
> You stupid greedy assholes that want to speculate on pork bellies and orange juice futures have at it.  You so much as think about profiting again on a commodity that involves our national security and you will be enjoying your last years with your celly Bubba.
> 
> Just sayin....  Grow some balls people.  It's still OUR world if we are not ready to give it away.



"Lower the cost of doing business."

Would that include the cost of doing business in the oil and gas industry?

Of course not- that's just not balls now is it?

You think that shit grows on trees or free-flows straight to the refinery? 

Still included in Obama's budget proposal - $40 billion plus in taxes on the DOMESTIC oil and gas industry. 

Now that's some BALLS.


----------



## HUGGY

Mr. H. said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need bold leadership now!  If gas hits $5 a gallon this year some smart candidate should declare that he or she will nationalize our oil as the highest priority to our security and our economic future.  Now before some of you fuckwits cry "communism" I'll answer that with "Go fuck your stupid willfully ignorant traitor selves".
> 
> If we are going to maintain our lead and presence in this world we have to assert ourselves and claim what is ours.
> 
> We "claim" exceptional ism when it suits us to invade countries on the other side of the planet  when ever we want.
> 
> The only way to guarantee costs be controlled in business is lower the cost of doing business.  One of the biggest costs is fuel and energy.
> 
> After the traitors AKA the corporations that sent our manufacturing jobs to other countries have shown their true colors as far as I an concerned they have not a damn thing coming.  This is war.  In war one must do EVERYTHING in one's power to win.  That is how we beat the AXIS in WWII in three and a half years.  We played full court press and used every weapon at our disposal.
> 
> Were we "communists" by rationing fuel during the big one?  Were we socialists by nationalizing commodities such as copper and rubber?
> 
> The free ride is OVER for the speculators on critical commodities.  Anyone caught trying to manipulate a commodity of national security importance should be arrested and put in prison.
> 
> You stupid greedy assholes that want to speculate on pork bellies and orange juice futures have at it.  You so much as think about profiting again on a commodity that involves our national security and you will be enjoying your last years with your celly Bubba.
> 
> Just sayin....  Grow some balls people.  It's still OUR world if we are not ready to give it away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Lower the cost of doing business."
> 
> Would that include the cost of doing business in the oil and gas industry?
> 
> Of course not- that's just not balls now is it?
> 
> You think that shit grows on trees or free-flows straight to the refinery?
> 
> Still included in Obama's budget proposal - $40 billion plus in taxes on the DOMESTIC oil and gas industry.
> 
> Now that's some BALLS.
Click to expand...


Nationalizing our oil reserves would not put any Americans out of work.  If we kicked the multinational corps out of our oil industry that doesn't mean we would lose a beat in anything.  We already know where the oil is...we don't need them.  The government could easily subcontract for drilling and exploration.  That's what the oil companies do anyway.  What it would do is take OUR oil off the market.  That would not prohibit us from buying more as needed.  It would lower the price at the pump.


----------



## Mr. H.

HUGGY said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need bold leadership now!  If gas hits $5 a gallon this year some smart candidate should declare that he or she will nationalize our oil as the highest priority to our security and our economic future.  Now before some of you fuckwits cry "communism" I'll answer that with "Go fuck your stupid willfully ignorant traitor selves".
> 
> If we are going to maintain our lead and presence in this world we have to assert ourselves and claim what is ours.
> 
> We "claim" exceptional ism when it suits us to invade countries on the other side of the planet  when ever we want.
> 
> The only way to guarantee costs be controlled in business is lower the cost of doing business.  One of the biggest costs is fuel and energy.
> 
> After the traitors AKA the corporations that sent our manufacturing jobs to other countries have shown their true colors as far as I an concerned they have not a damn thing coming.  This is war.  In war one must do EVERYTHING in one's power to win.  That is how we beat the AXIS in WWII in three and a half years.  We played full court press and used every weapon at our disposal.
> 
> Were we "communists" by rationing fuel during the big one?  Were we socialists by nationalizing commodities such as copper and rubber?
> 
> The free ride is OVER for the speculators on critical commodities.  Anyone caught trying to manipulate a commodity of national security importance should be arrested and put in prison.
> 
> You stupid greedy assholes that want to speculate on pork bellies and orange juice futures have at it.  You so much as think about profiting again on a commodity that involves our national security and you will be enjoying your last years with your celly Bubba.
> 
> Just sayin....  Grow some balls people.  It's still OUR world if we are not ready to give it away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Lower the cost of doing business."
> 
> Would that include the cost of doing business in the oil and gas industry?
> 
> Of course not- that's just not balls now is it?
> 
> You think that shit grows on trees or free-flows straight to the refinery?
> 
> Still included in Obama's budget proposal - $40 billion plus in taxes on the DOMESTIC oil and gas industry.
> 
> Now that's some BALLS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nationalizing our oil reserves would not put any Americans out of work.  If we kicked the multinational corps out of our oil industry that doesn't mean we would lose a beat in anything.  We already know where the oil is...we don't need them.  The government could easily subcontract for drilling and exploration.  That's what the oil companies do anyway.  What it would do is take OUR oil off the market.  That would not prohibit us from buying more as needed.  It would lower the price at the pump.
Click to expand...


"Multinational corps"?

I don't think you realize who's doing the work in this country. Independents produce approximately 68% of our oil, 85% of our natural gas and drill almost 90% of the countrys wells.
http://ipaa.org/reports/faq/docs/2008ProfileOfIndependentProducers.pdf

If you're just being facetious here, I'll bow out and let you get on with the tongue-in-cheek monologue. 

And what purpose is served by taking OUR oil off the market? You realize crude imports account for the majority of the trade deficit?


----------



## Bones

Mr. Sauerkraut said:


> Volkswagen "1 Liter Car". This thing drives 62,5 miles with 1 Liter of fuel or 237,5 miles per gallon. No kidding.
> 
> Demand it and we build it.


It's a shame only the upper middle class and wealthy can afford these fuel efficient automobiles.  When's the last time you've seen the impoverished cruising around in a hybrid or fuel flex car?


----------



## RGR

Bones said:


> It's a shame only the upper middle class and wealthy can afford these fuel efficient automobiles.  When's the last time you've seen the impoverished cruising around in a hybrid or fuel flex car?



I saw a Prius for sale for $16G's just yesterday. Median/Mean new car price in America is something like $25G's or so? And the impoverished couldn't afford cars back before peak oil happened either, let alone since its happened. Blaming this fact of economic life on peak oil is yet another ridiculous claim by some peak church member.

Peak as a religion is designed as a belief system so that this group of geologic incompetents (with human hater tendencies) can construct a nice, personally customized Rapture scenario for themselves. It has nothing to do with either the reality of resource depletion in general, or peak oil in particular.


----------



## M14 Shooter

RGR said:


> Bones said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a shame only the upper middle class and wealthy can afford these fuel efficient automobiles.  When's the last time you've seen the impoverished cruising around in a hybrid or fuel flex car?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I saw a Prius for sale for $16G's just yesterday. Median/Mean new car price in America is something like $25G's or so? And the impoverished couldn't afford cars back before peak oil happened either, let alone since its happened. Blaming this fact of economic life on peak oil is yet another ridiculous claim by some peak church member.
> 
> Peak as a religion is designed as a belief system so that this group of geologic incompetents (with human hater tendencies) can construct a nice, personally customized Rapture scenario for themselves. It has nothing to do with either the reality of resource depletion in general, or peak oil in particular.
Click to expand...

It's all about curing affluenza.


----------



## westwall

I don't think nationaliztion is a good idea but the oil companies are colluding to raise the price of oil.  there is no reason for oil to be the price it is.  The commodities brokers are responsible for driving it up (at someone elses behest I believe).  I would love to see everyone stop buying fuel for one week.
The price of oil would plummet when it wasn't moving down the pipe.


----------



## Mr. H.

Well, which is it? Oil company collusion or commodity brokers?

It can't be the former. There have already been numerous investigations over the years .


----------



## Bones

RGR said:


> Peak as a religion is designed as a belief system so that this group of geologic incompetents (with human hater tendencies) can construct a nice, personally customized Rapture scenario for themselves. It has nothing to do with either the reality of resource depletion in general, or peak oil in particular.


It's basic statistics.  If the human population continues to grow at this unnaturally rapid pace and continues to rely on finite resources, which our whole way of life depends on, disaster will strike. 

Look how rapidly our species grew after the industrial revolution and especially in the 20th century.  It's ridiculous to think that cheap petroleum will last much longer at this pace of growth.  The current (and future) amount of worldwide petrol consumption is unsustainable.


----------



## Mr. H.

Here's a story whether relevant or not.

My brother the geologist called me up serveral years ago. He said he's got a good looking prospect that might make a decent oil well or three. Or more who knows. 

Well I don't know shit about geology but I trust this guy because he's good. He's proven himself with the big boys.

Ok- what's the game. I like working with money and numbers and sales and selling shit. So I'm like ok you do the science and I'll do the rest. No problem.

He: "Ok- you got any money to get this thing going?".

Me: "Fuck no- you got any money to put in?"

"Nope"

So on my desk among the morning's mail - 0% credit card offer-  6 months no interest. 

"Tell you what- we'll take out some of this 0% money and we'll use it to get the location staked, pay for the permit, put a down payment on the drilling contract." We figured we'd have it sold and drilled before the first payment was due.

I drew up an AFE, he wrote up the geology report and we were good to go.

Then we worked the phones- raised $80,000 in the next week and were making hole soon after. 

The end result? Damned prettiest looking 10" hole in the ground you ever saw. 3,000' deep to boot. 

Oil? Hell no. But we each walked away  with 3 grand in our pockets and praise from our investors for a job well done. Paid off the credit card with money to spare. 

One in 8 wildcats results in a commercial discovery. 90% of the wells in this country are drilled by independents. "Big Oil" left the building long ago, folks. 

There are a half million producing oil wells in the lower 48 states. On average they each make 2-3 barrels per day each, and Obama is out to snuff them all. Fuck him and the unicorn he rode in on.


----------



## editec

> On average they each make 2-3 barrels per day each, and Obama is out to snuff them all.


 
How is he doing that, exactly?


----------



## Mr. H.

Hey it's the wine talking. I'll post again when this hangover subsides.


----------



## SwordofDamocles

Old Rocks said:


> This is what the Conservatives want. Make sure that all the wealth goes to the very wealthy, whether they are here or abroad. And the Saudi princes will give the current leading Republican a big smackaroo in public, and make sure that the Repuke kisses his ass in private. Kind of like the time they visited Crawford



Why isn't the dingdong-in-chief doing something about rising gas prices?  Anyone?


----------



## Care4all

As long as we rely on the middle east for a good deal of our energy source that we consume, and there are 'wars' in the region, we are at their mercy.....gasoline could be 10 bucks a gallon in less than a decade....

It's a HUGE National Security risk...


----------



## Mr. H.

Care4all said:


> As long as we rely on the middle east for a good deal of our energy source that we consume, and there are 'wars' in the region, we are at their mercy.....gasoline could be 10 bucks a gallon in less than a decade....
> 
> It's a HUGE National Security risk...



These days it's mostly imported from Canada, Mexico, and Saudi Aruba. 

Yet, gasoline could be $1 a gallon next year. It's a fickle commodity.


----------



## Care4all

Mr. H. said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> As long as we rely on the middle east for a good deal of our energy source that we consume, and there are 'wars' in the region, we are at their mercy.....gasoline could be 10 bucks a gallon in less than a decade....
> 
> It's a HUGE National Security risk...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These days it's mostly imported from Canada, Mexico, and Saudi Aruba.
> 
> Yet, gasoline could be $1 a gallon next year. It's a fickle commodity.
Click to expand...


Oil is sold on a GLOBAL market....no?

And if the middle east decides to give the west the screws and turns down their spickets, it will affect the price of oil in Canada and Mexico that we buy, and the price of oil that we draw from usa soil will also go way up in price too.

Yes it is a fickled commodity.


----------



## Samson

SwordofDamocles said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what the Conservatives want. Make sure that all the wealth goes to the very wealthy, whether they are here or abroad. And the Saudi princes will give the current leading Republican a big smackaroo in public, and make sure that the Repuke kisses his ass in private. Kind of like the time they visited Crawford
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why isn't the dingdong-in-chief doing something about rising gas prices?  Anyone?
Click to expand...




Care4all said:


> As long as we rely on the middle east for a good deal of our energy source that we consume, and there are 'wars' in the region, we are at their mercy.....gasoline could be 10 bucks a gallon in less than a decade....
> 
> It's a HUGE National Security risk...




So, let's make it more difficult to extract oil from Alaska and offshore!!!


----------



## Mr. H.

Care4all said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> As long as we rely on the middle east for a good deal of our energy source that we consume, and there are 'wars' in the region, we are at their mercy.....gasoline could be 10 bucks a gallon in less than a decade....
> 
> It's a HUGE National Security risk...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These days it's mostly imported from Canada, Mexico, and Saudi Aruba.
> 
> Yet, gasoline could be $1 a gallon next year. It's a fickle commodity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oil is sold on a GLOBAL market....no?
> 
> And if the middle east decides to give the west the screws and turns down their spickets, it will affect the price of oil in Canada and Mexico that we buy, and the price of oil that we draw from usa soil will also go way up in price too.
> 
> Yes it is a fickled commodity.
Click to expand...


Yup. But Saudi Arooga isn't likely to do that. I would think that they are locked into long-term contracts to supply crude to Gulf coast refiners and want to protect market share.


----------



## Care4all

Samson said:


> SwordofDamocles said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what the Conservatives want. Make sure that all the wealth goes to the very wealthy, whether they are here or abroad. And the Saudi princes will give the current leading Republican a big smackaroo in public, and make sure that the Repuke kisses his ass in private. Kind of like the time they visited Crawford
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why isn't the dingdong-in-chief doing something about rising gas prices?  Anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> As long as we rely on the middle east for a good deal of our energy source that we consume, and there are 'wars' in the region, we are at their mercy.....gasoline could be 10 bucks a gallon in less than a decade....
> 
> It's a HUGE National Security risk...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, let's make it more difficult to extract oil from Alaska and offshore!!!
Click to expand...


I think it should be up to the people in the communities that could be affected by the oil drilling....if Florida does not want oil wells off their pristine shorelines, which are the backbone of their economy, for the fear of another BP oil gusher disaster, then they would know best.

If the proposed oil drilling is on National Park property, then I think it should be up to the people in this country to decide, what they are willing to give up for the gain.

As far as drilling on land, that anyone owns.....go for it.

but it will still not make a difference in the price of oil, if the middle east decides to turn down the spicket...  the oil drawn from our soil STILL goes on the global market, and the $10 a gallon gasoline will still be a National Security risk....it will bring our nation to its knees.


----------



## HUGGY

Bones said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Peak as a religion is designed as a belief system so that this group of geologic incompetents (with human hater tendencies) can construct a nice, personally customized Rapture scenario for themselves. It has nothing to do with either the reality of resource depletion in general, or peak oil in particular.
> 
> 
> 
> It's basic statistics.  If the human population continues to grow at this unnaturally rapid pace and continues to rely on finite resources, which our whole way of life depends on, disaster will strike.
> 
> Look how rapidly our species grew after the industrial revolution and especially in the 20th century.  It's ridiculous to think that cheap petroleum will last much longer at this pace of growth.  The current (and future) amount of worldwide petrol consumption is unsustainable.
Click to expand...


It is an interesting plot.  Will goodness overcome the chaos?  Who are the heroes and villains?  American exceptional-ism vs the teeming hoards...  

As this narrative unfolds is there a happy ending?  Must there be an ending?  No?  Revolutionary!!

As it turns out we are all playing the same game.  All our enemies were obscured by window dressing.  Commies did in fact love their children ...some less than others..like the Chinese that loved their sons more than daughters so they compromised in their inscrutable way by limiting both saving themselves and probably the world from overpopulation by an extreme example of discipline no other country is capable of. 

As the story presses on that's still not good enough because we are still the guys in possession of the white hats having taken the high ground in WWII.  Exceptional-ism is still our inheritance.  There would be no world worth having if the Japs and Germans had won.

I for one welcome the Chinese example of population control and having them spread their culture of necessity by way of commerce to other third world countries is far from a bad thing.  Herding cats is apparently what they do best.

So why should we get the cheap gasoline and the endless choices of SUV's to waste it?

Because as Hollywood points out so well at the ticket booth...everyone regardless of ethnicity loves a hero and we don't care what it costs to keep our heroes happy.  Surprise surprise...we are the heroes.  It wasn't Henry Kaiser that won the day with the Liberty Ships working alone.  It was the Americans that built them.  We do not owe anybody anything.  They still ALL owe us.   Without us this world would truly already be the shithole everyone whines about.  

Should we grow up and stop riding the hero card?  No.  We are still useful as the guiding beacon of humanity.  Indulge us.


----------



## westwall

Mr. H. said:


> Well, which is it? Oil company collusion or commodity brokers?
> 
> It can't be the former. There have already been numerous investigations over the years .







When you have a retired oil company exec come out and say it is going to happen.  The media reports the crap out of it, without bothering to report the fact that there is no reson for the price to get that high, it enters into the lexicon and by hook or by crook it will become a self fulfilling prophecy.  You watch, there will be ever more articles reporting on the impending price increases.


----------



## westwall

HUGGY said:


> Bones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Peak as a religion is designed as a belief system so that this group of geologic incompetents (with human hater tendencies) can construct a nice, personally customized Rapture scenario for themselves. It has nothing to do with either the reality of resource depletion in general, or peak oil in particular.
> 
> 
> 
> It's basic statistics.  If the human population continues to grow at this unnaturally rapid pace and continues to rely on finite resources, which our whole way of life depends on, disaster will strike.
> 
> Look how rapidly our species grew after the industrial revolution and especially in the 20th century.  It's ridiculous to think that cheap petroleum will last much longer at this pace of growth.  The current (and future) amount of worldwide petrol consumption is unsustainable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is an interesting plot.  Will goodness overcome the chaos?  Who are the heroes and villains?  American exceptional-ism vs the teeming hoards...
> 
> As this narrative unfolds is there a happy ending?  Must there be an ending?  No?  Revolutionary!!
> 
> As it turns out we are all playing the same game.  All our enemies were obscured by window dressing.  Commies did in fact love their children ...some less than others..like the Chinese that loved their sons more than daughters so they compromised in their inscrutable way by limiting both saving themselves and probably the world from overpopulation by an extreme example of discipline no other country is capable of.
> 
> As the story presses on that's still not good enough because we are still the guys in possession of the white hats having taken the high ground in WWII.  Exceptional-ism is still our inheritance.  There would be no world worth having if the Japs and Germans had won.
> 
> I for one welcome the Chinese example of population control and having them spread their culture of necessity by way of commerce to other third world countries is far from a bad thing.  Herding cats is apparently what they do best.
> 
> So why should we get the cheap gasoline and the endless choices of SUV's to waste it?
> 
> Because as Hollywood points out so well at the ticket booth...everyone regardless of ethnicity loves a hero and we don't care what it costs to keep our heroes happy.  Surprise surprise...we are the heroes.  It wasn't Henry Kaiser that won the day with the Liberty Ships working alone.  It was the Americans that built them.  We do not owe anybody anything.  They still ALL owe us.   Without us this world would truly already be the shithole everyone whines about.
> 
> Should we grow up and stop riding the hero card?  No.  We are still useful as the guiding beacon of humanity.  Indulge us.
Click to expand...





Huggy, it is not neccessary to follow the Chinese model.  The population levels are allready leveling off.   First world nations are allready dropping in population (except for the immigrants coming in) and now we are seeing Third World nations beginning to level off.  As people get wealthier and better educated they produce less children.


----------



## Mr. H.

What's the difference between the "Old stone age" and the "New stone age"?

I mean, did they discover non-stick stones or something?


----------



## Mr. H.

westwall said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, which is it? Oil company collusion or commodity brokers?
> 
> It can't be the former. There have already been numerous investigations over the years .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you have a retired oil company exec come out and say it is going to happen.  The media reports the crap out of it, without bothering to report the fact that there is no reson for the price to get that high, it enters into the lexicon and by hook or by crook it will become a self fulfilling prophecy.  You watch, there will be ever more articles reporting on the impending price increases.
Click to expand...


Yup. Buy the rumor, sell the fact.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Mr. H. said:


> What's the difference between the "Old stone age" and the "New stone age"?
> 
> I mean, did they discover non-stick stones or something?



Actually, I think it delineates between prehistoric and modern humans.


----------



## westwall

Mr. H. said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, which is it? Oil company collusion or commodity brokers?
> 
> It can't be the former. There have already been numerous investigations over the years .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you have a retired oil company exec come out and say it is going to happen.  The media reports the crap out of it, without bothering to report the fact that there is no reson for the price to get that high, it enters into the lexicon and by hook or by crook it will become a self fulfilling prophecy.  You watch, there will be ever more articles reporting on the impending price increases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup. Buy the rumor, sell the fact.
Click to expand...





In a nutshell.


----------



## RGR

Bones said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Peak as a religion is designed as a belief system so that this group of geologic incompetents (with human hater tendencies) can construct a nice, personally customized Rapture scenario for themselves. It has nothing to do with either the reality of resource depletion in general, or peak oil in particular.
> 
> 
> 
> It's basic statistics.
Click to expand...


Peakers can't add up all the oil in the world because the number has too many zeros in it, to think they know anything about statistics is more than a stretch. Their religion doesn't permit knowledge of science, let alone the language of it (statistics).

If you wish to recycle Malthus, at least be honest about how HIS claims of overpopulation worked out before you rework the same nonsense to your own ends.


----------



## Mr. Sauerkraut

Bones said:


> It's a shame only the upper middle class and wealthy can afford these fuel efficient automobiles.  When's the last time you've seen the impoverished cruising around in a hybrid or fuel flex car?



there´s always a solution


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> Peakers can't add up all the oil in the world because the number has too many zeros in it, to think they know anything about statistics is more than a stretch. Their religion doesn't permit knowledge of science, let alone the language of it (statistics).
> 
> If you wish to recycle Malthus, at least be honest about how HIS claims of overpopulation worked out before you rework the same nonsense to your own ends.



LOL. It's the same thing with you, no matter who you engage. Baseless personal insinuation, followed by ZERO counter argument to the graph presented. In fact, you punted to the Malthus straw man. Nice touch.

You run your mouth about your self-proclaimed superior grasp of statistics over and over again, but you're not fooling anyone here. You have yet provide a single statistical reference. That's because the statistics are not on your side of the argument at all. Sorry. ... And they can't be bribed, spun, or discredited... So that leaves you in quite a fix.

Once again. Where is the oil? How much is left? You know, right, stat king?

See you next week. Can't wait.


----------



## editec

FYI

EXCEPT for immigration (both legal and illegal) the USA reached ZERO POPULATION GROWTH waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in the late 1960s.

The world can blame Americans for a lot of things, I'll admit.

But having too many children is NOT one of our faults.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you wish to recycle Malthus, at least be honest about how HIS claims of overpopulation worked out before you rework the same nonsense to your own ends.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. It's the same thing with you, no matter who you engage. Baseless personal insinuation, followed by ZERO counter argument to the graph presented. In fact, you punted to the Malthus straw man. Nice touch.
Click to expand...


Malthusian predictions of human Doom through overpopulation do not require additional explanation. Doomers generally do not KNOW things, they parrot what they have heard from others. Factual information does not require a "counter", it simply is. Human population HAS grown quite a bit since the beginning of the industrial revolution. 

The graph provided certainly didn't not detail where current estimates say that growth will end, or deny any of the continued functioning of the mechanisms which have allowed humans to grow their population as far as they already have, or to use those same techniques to grow our population to its expected maximum.



			
				Jiggscasey said:
			
		

> You have yet provide a single statistical reference.



I haven't needed to. The graph provided wasn't a statistic expression, it was just data on a Cartesian graph. 



			
				Jiggscasey said:
			
		

> Once again. Where is the oil? How much is left? You know, right, stat king?
> See you next week. Can't wait.



We have already began discussing this elsewhere. Certainly you have already demonstrated that you have "favorite" oils, just like Peakers do. Until you can even define what YOUR particular definition of oil is, that can be a difficult question to answer. Not that I have any intention of using an oil definition conceived by yet another peaker, but we have to start somewhere to determine your overall level of ignorance on this topic.


----------



## HUGGY

I don't care if the Germans are paying 7 bucks a gallon for gas.  If it wasn't for us they would still be speaking German!


----------



## zzzz

Mr. Sauerkraut said:


> Bones said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a shame only the upper middle class and wealthy can afford these fuel efficient automobiles.  When's the last time you've seen the impoverished cruising around in a hybrid or fuel flex car?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there´s always a solution
Click to expand...


Mopeds


----------



## Mr. Sauerkraut

zzzz said:


> Mr. Sauerkraut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bones said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a shame only the upper middle class and wealthy can afford these fuel efficient automobiles.  When's the last time you've seen the impoverished cruising around in a hybrid or fuel flex car?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there´s always a solution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mopeds
Click to expand...


the french´s answer






and they wonder why their car industry is going down...


----------



## westwall

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Peakers can't add up all the oil in the world because the number has too many zeros in it, to think they know anything about statistics is more than a stretch. Their religion doesn't permit knowledge of science, let alone the language of it (statistics).
> 
> If you wish to recycle Malthus, at least be honest about how HIS claims of overpopulation worked out before you rework the same nonsense to your own ends.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. It's the same thing with you, no matter who you engage. Baseless personal insinuation, followed by ZERO counter argument to the graph presented. In fact, you punted to the Malthus straw man. Nice touch.
> 
> You run your mouth about your self-proclaimed superior grasp of statistics over and over again, but you're not fooling anyone here. You have yet provide a single statistical reference. That's because the statistics are not on your side of the argument at all. Sorry. ... And they can't be bribed, spun, or discredited... So that leaves you in quite a fix.
> 
> Once again. Where is the oil? How much is left? You know, right, stat king?
> 
> See you next week. Can't wait.
Click to expand...





Answer my question Jiggs.  Are RGR's numbers correct as regards the supplies now?


----------



## westwall

editec said:


> FYI
> 
> EXCEPT for immigration (both legal and illegal) the USA reached ZERO POPULATION GROWTH waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in the late 1960s.
> 
> The world can blame Americans for a lot of things, I'll admit.
> 
> But having too many children is NOT one of our faults.






And this is true for the MAJORITY of First World nations.  Even some Third World countries are levelling off.  Something that no one thought would ever happen.


----------



## JiggsCasey

westwall said:


> Answer my question Jiggs.  Are RGR's numbers correct as regards the supplies now?



Link to what you're asking please. I may have missed it. 

I'll be happy to take a look.


----------



## westwall

JiggsCasey said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer my question Jiggs.  Are RGR's numbers correct as regards the supplies now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link to what you're asking please. I may have missed it.
> 
> I'll be happy to take a look.
Click to expand...





1970's oil reserves 690 billion barrels.  Today the reserves are estimated at 1025 billion barrels of oil.


----------



## JiggsCasey

westwall said:


> 1970's oil reserves 690 billion barrels.  Today the reserves are estimated at 1025 billion barrels of oil.



That's painfully vague. I asked you to link to the post you're referring to. 

Reserves of what? Recoverable or technical? Proven or estimated? 

More important, is there any mention of the exponential demand growth curve since the 1970s? Probably not.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1970's oil reserves 690 billion barrels.  Today the reserves are estimated at 1025 billion barrels of oil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's painfully vague. I asked you to link to the post you're referring to.
> 
> Reserves of what? Recoverable or technical? Proven or estimated?
> 
> More important, is there any mention of the exponential demand growth curve since the 1970s? Probably not.
Click to expand...


Proven reserves, EIA, 1980, 644 billion barrels.
Proven reserves, EIA, 2007, 1317 billion barrels.

Approximate consumption between 1980 and 2007, 716 billion barrels.

In 27 years we consumed 716 billion, and found not only that 716 billion, but another 601 billion to boot.

Sure we find more than we consume. Doing it all the time. And of course reserves have nothing to do with demand growth, exponential, hyperbolic, harmonic, in either a positive or negative direction. Go find someone who knows something about this topic, and at least parrot THEM instead of whatever ignorant peaker you listened to to come up with this nonsense.


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> Proven reserves, EIA, 1980, 644 billion barrels.
> Proven reserves, EIA, 2007, 1317 billion barrels.
> 
> Approximate consumption between 1980 and 2007, 716 billion barrels.
> 
> In 27 years we consumed 716 billion, and found not only that 716 billion, but another 601 billion to boot.
> 
> Sure we find more than we consume. Doing it all the time. And of course reserves have nothing to do with demand growth, exponential, hyperbolic, harmonic, in either a positive or negative direction. Go find someone who knows something about this topic, and at least parrot THEM instead of whatever ignorant peaker you listened to to come up with this nonsense.



Again, you arrogant asshat... Link your claim.  Why is that so troubling for you guys?

Let's agree on a starting point of what is being said, not your fraudulent assessment of what is being said.

You're right that I should find someone else who knows about this topic to debate with, because it surely isn't you.


----------



## Old Rocks

westwall said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer my question Jiggs.  Are RGR's numbers correct as regards the supplies now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link to what you're asking please. I may have missed it.
> 
> I'll be happy to take a look.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1970's oil reserves 690 billion barrels.  Today the reserves are estimated at 1025 billion barrels of oil.
Click to expand...


Typical. Blind assertation, nothing at all to back it up. Anyone knows that there are reserves and there are 'reserves'. Recoverable at what price is the whole point.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proven reserves, EIA, 1980, 644 billion barrels.
> Proven reserves, EIA, 2007, 1317 billion barrels.
> 
> Approximate consumption between 1980 and 2007, 716 billion barrels.
> 
> In 27 years we consumed 716 billion, and found not only that 716 billion, but another 601 billion to boot.
> 
> Sure we find more than we consume. Doing it all the time. And of course reserves have nothing to do with demand growth, exponential, hyperbolic, harmonic, in either a positive or negative direction. Go find someone who knows something about this topic, and at least parrot THEM instead of whatever ignorant peaker you listened to to come up with this nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you arrogant asshat... Link your claim.  Why is that so troubling for you guys?
Click to expand...


I do apologize. I assumed even a parrot knew how to find the EIA website, what with all of 3 letters to enter into google. My bad for assuming you were a smart parrot.

Energy Information Administration - International Petroleum (Oil) Reserves and Resources Data


----------



## RGR

Old Rocks said:


> 1970's oil reserves 690 billion barrels.  Today the reserves are estimated at 1025 billion barrels of oil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical. Blind assertation, nothing at all to back it up. Anyone knows that there are reserves and there are 'reserves'. Recoverable at what price is the whole point.
Click to expand...


Hey, you don't like EIA data I suggest you blame Jimmy Carter, he's the guy who fired those boys up. And I must ask, with a little giggle,  you wouldn't happen to be able to quantify the difference between "reserves" and "reserves" would you? 

Certainly I've never had any of mine reversed during audit, and I'm curious how many times you think an auditor demanded of the engineer doing the reserves "no, not THOSE reserves! I demand those OTHER reserves!" and received anything but that same little knowing giggle.


----------



## westwall

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link to what you're asking please. I may have missed it.
> 
> I'll be happy to take a look.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1970's oil reserves 690 billion barrels.  Today the reserves are estimated at 1025 billion barrels of oil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical. Blind assertation, nothing at all to back it up. Anyone knows that there are reserves and there are 'reserves'. Recoverable at what price is the whole point.
Click to expand...





Just following your lead there olfraud.  You do it all the time so I wanted to see what it was like.


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proven reserves, EIA, 1980, 644 billion barrels.
> Proven reserves, EIA, 2007, 1317 billion barrels.
> 
> Approximate consumption between 1980 and 2007, 716 billion barrels.
> 
> In 27 years we consumed 716 billion, and found not only that 716 billion, but another 601 billion to boot.
> 
> Sure we find more than we consume. Doing it all the time. And of course reserves have nothing to do with demand growth, exponential, hyperbolic, harmonic, in either a positive or negative direction. Go find someone who knows something about this topic, and at least parrot THEM instead of whatever ignorant peaker you listened to to come up with this nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you arrogant asshat... Link your claim.  Why is that so troubling for you guys?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do apologize. I assumed even a parrot knew how to find the EIA website, what with all of 3 letters to enter into google. My bad for assuming you were a smart parrot.
> 
> Energy Information Administration - International Petroleum (Oil) Reserves and Resources Data
Click to expand...


Intellectually dishonest much? You know why I asked, just as much as you know exactly why you punted to the vague main page. Your claim wants to make a specific allegation, so get specific in defense of it and cut and paste the figures you're referring to. Instead, you link us to a main page of multiple enormous pdf hyperlinks and xls downloads, expecting us to hunt down the data and verify your specific claim for ourselves, ... or just silently accept it as fact. LOL. The one html link on that page says NOTHING about 1980. ... 

Do better. Do the work.

Was the 1,317 billion figure all there ever was, or what's left going forward? Is it proven reserve totals which later became "technically recoverable" reserve totals? ... Do both dates consider ultra-expensive oil fracked from dirt as part of world reserves? Or just the newest figures? ... I doubt you're reading the figures correctly. Still, trying to pretend 200% reserve growth in global capacity has occurred in 27 years is really funny though, and confirms further that you don't know what you're ultimately talking about. Just another reminder: Unconventional oil is not light crude. Mmm-kay?

Ah well, at least we know this, from your own link:

*Important Note on Sources of Foreign Reserve Estimates
*

_Reserve estimates for oil, natural gas, and coal are very difficult to develop.   The Energy Information Administration (EIA) develops estimates of reserves of oil, natural gas, and coal *for the United States but does not attempt to develop estimates for foreign countries*. As a convenience to the public, EIA makes available foreign fuel reserve estimates from other sources, but it does not certify these data. Please carefully note the sources of the data when using and citing estimates of foreign fuel reserves._​
Reserve growth does not support your "peak is far off" platform any more than shale gas goes. Pretending overall models were wrong 30-50 years ago because they weren't 100% to the letter accurate says nothing about the symptoms of today. The overall diagnosis is clear. The debate about peak is over. You lost.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> Do better. Do the work.



I do. But I already told you, I wouldn't use the IHS international database against you, it wouldn't be fair.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Was the 1,317 billion figure all there ever was, or what's left going forward?



Understand what reserves are, and that question answers itself. Would you like me to round up the SPE definitions so you can read them at your leisure?



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Is it proven reserve totals which later became "technically recoverable" reserve totals? ...
> Do both dates consider ultra-expensive oil fracked from dirt as part of world reserves? Or just the newest figures? ... I doubt you're reading the figures correctly. Still, trying to pretend 200% reserve growth in global capacity has occurred in 27 years is really funny though, and confirms further that you don't know what you're ultimately talking about. Just another reminder: Unconventional oil is not light crude. Mmm-kay?



You are incorrect in the above paragraph for several reasons, beyond your obvious confusion as to what reserves versus resources actually are. Ask single specific question and I will be happy to explain any piece of it. But my response to the intertwined and confused paragraph above is: Don't confuse reserves and resources, ultra expensive is a relative concept, it isn't used in dirt, and is as inherent to modern oil and gas operations as steel pipe, unconventional oil such as the Bakken shale oil is a perfectly wonderful conventional 42 degree API fluid, and you haven't even attempted to answer the question which was....how is it that parrots say we don't find as much as we consume when obviously we do? And have? 




			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Reserve growth does not support your "peak is far off" platform any more than shale gas goes. Pretending overall models were wrong 30-50 years ago because they weren't 100% to the letter accurate says nothing about the symptoms of today. The overall diagnosis is clear. The debate about peak is over. You lost.



I did not say anything about reserve growth, I listed the EIA numbers showing that for every barrel consumed we find more, which disputes one of the central parables of the Peak Oil religion. 

The Peak Oil religion is all about trying to limit the debate to some tiny subsection of what is oil, or only certain cost categories of oil, or using only certain techniques to produce it.  Proclamations by parrots that THE DEBATE ABOUT PEAK IS OVER is just as stupid as saying THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED and reveals more about the ignorance of who says those words than anything resembling the reality of the situation.

Please tell us why peak oil priests say we don't discover as much as we consume when obviously we do.

If you think the EIA inaccurately counted the numbers, please, tell us why. Do you have information showing they counted something which doesn't exist?

Come on Jiggys, fire off a random neuron already, put down the peaker bible and THINK about this stuff.


----------



## Big Fitz

Chris said:


> NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The former president of Shell Oil, John Hofmeister, says Americans could be paying $5 for a gallon of gasoline by 2012.
> 
> In an interview with Platt's Energy Week television, Hofmeister predicted gasoline prices will spike as the global demand for oil increases.
> 
> "I'm predicting actually the worst outcome over the next two years which takes us to 2012 with higher gasoline prices," he said.
> 
> Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst with Oil Price Information Service says Americans will see gasoline prices hit the $5 a gallon mark in the next decade, but not by 2012.
> 
> $5 for a gallon of gasoline in 2012 - Dec. 27, 2010


Easily countered by a few simple steps.

1. Re-open domestic oil production/development.

2. Drop oppressive restrictions on domestic coal production

3. Continued RESEARCH into improving alternative energies and Fusion, but not production.

4. Restart building nuke and coal power plants.

5. Promise to protect budding domestic oil production with tariffs or other trade protection if OPEC collapses the oil market to destroy the domesitic industry... again... for a short period of time.

6. End all global warming bullshit legislation.

Do those 6 things and our future brightens up tremendously


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do better. Do the work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do. But I already told you, I wouldn't use the IHS international database against you, it wouldn't be fair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was the 1,317 billion figure all there ever was, or what's left going forward?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Understand what reserves are, and that question answers itself. Would you like me to round up the SPE definitions so you can read them at your leisure?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it proven reserve totals which later became "technically recoverable" reserve totals? ...
> Do both dates consider ultra-expensive oil fracked from dirt as part of world reserves? Or just the newest figures? ... I doubt you're reading the figures correctly. Still, trying to pretend 200% reserve growth in global capacity has occurred in 27 years is really funny though, and confirms further that you don't know what you're ultimately talking about. Just another reminder: Unconventional oil is not light crude. Mmm-kay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are incorrect in the above paragraph for several reasons, beyond your obvious confusion as to what reserves versus resources actually are. Ask single specific question and I will be happy to explain any piece of it. But my response to the intertwined and confused paragraph above is: Don't confuse reserves and resources, ultra expensive is a relative concept, it isn't used in dirt, and is as inherent to modern oil and gas operations as steel pipe, unconventional oil such as the Bakken shale oil is a perfectly wonderful conventional 42 degree API fluid, and you haven't even attempted to answer the question which was....how is it that parrots say we don't find as much as we consume when obviously we do? And have?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reserve growth does not support your "peak is far off" platform any more than shale gas goes. Pretending overall models were wrong 30-50 years ago because they weren't 100% to the letter accurate says nothing about the symptoms of today. The overall diagnosis is clear. The debate about peak is over. You lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not say anything about reserve growth, I listed the EIA numbers showing that for every barrel consumed we find more, which disputes one of the central parables of the Peak Oil religion.
> 
> The Peak Oil religion is all about trying to limit the debate to some tiny subsection of what is oil, or only certain cost categories of oil, or using only certain techniques to produce it.  Proclamations by parrots that THE DEBATE ABOUT PEAK IS OVER is just as stupid as saying THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED and reveals more about the ignorance of who says those words than anything resembling the reality of the situation.
> 
> Please tell us why peak oil priests say we don't discover as much as we consume when obviously we do.
> 
> If you think the EIA inaccurately counted the numbers, please, tell us why. Do you have information showing they counted something which doesn't exist?
> 
> Come on Jiggys, fire off a random neuron already, put down the peaker bible and THINK about this stuff.
Click to expand...


It's official then. Your entire, arrogant, smarmy argument rests on the "wonders" of unconventional oil.

At least, finally, you've outed your elusive agenda. It's taken a bit of prodding, as you punted to reserve growth and "it's where it's always been" goofiness. But now, we all see that your entire platform here hides behind the laughable assumption that oil-from-dirt and oil-from-clay and gas-from-rock offers the same kind of return on investment that light sweet crude has for decades. It's the same tactic of your little cheerleader there, Westless, before you. I mean, after he finally came off the abiotic vs. biotic irrelevancy. 

You're both quite wrong: The heavy stuff is not remotely close to being as cost effective as your hope-based argument desperately wants it to be... And I'm fairly content that you KNOW shale and tar sands don't measure up. All it's doing right now is plugging short-term leaks in supply/demand shortfall. As that gap widens, unconventionals will not keep up. Everyone knows this, especially Robert Hirsch, the IEA and all the other sources you desperately try to spin.

I especially like your Bakken claim. There's a lot more to oil extraction feasibility than mere API, but being intellectually dishonest like you are, you didn't mention porosity, permeability nor water saturation. But if you're going to pretend 3.7 billion barrels of technically recoverable, vastly more expensive oil in S. Dakota is doing much for your argument, well you keep at it. ... LOL. Bakken... Good one. More denialist dogma. Will it be Prudhoe Bay next, Lindsey Williams?

If the dirty stuff was cost effective, we'd have made significant progress in perfecting it years ago, and be producing far more of it today. Meanwhile, investors are bailing from Tar Sands (China's CNOOC, among others), and shale gas investment is tepid at best, because no one is comfortable with the environmental costs. Fortunately, our current leaders are not yet ready to expand a shale gas industry that exists by manufacturing mini-earthquakes all over our nation, and poisoning our water table to shake loose a bit of gas that will represent perhaps a twentieth of what our energy appetite demands.

So for all your blabber, the core of your argument is to insist that a 3:1 return on investment process (unconventionals) can magically and seamlessly become a 20:1 return on investment (as is light crude), as well as provide ever-increasing rates of volume. And do all this in short order, so as to maintain stasis for complex societies already rapidly dying. ... Riiiiight.

But Oops!!! It doesn't work that way. The world is waking up to that reality, and our global liquids production has flat-lined for 7 years now, while demand continue to rise. That's an equation you can't counter, so you dance around the central question, and pretend I'm guilty of your own laughable dancing steps.

You're not fooling anyone here, denialist.

Oil-from-clay and gas-from-rock is not gonna save our empire that can NOT survive in its current form without 5-7% annual growth. Sorry. It doesn't. 

You arrogant, well-off types may not feel peak will affect you much, but most of America, already feeling it, sure will. It will get worse, and, out of bullets like you are, you'll all disappear from this forum, and/or continue to pretend the global economy's systemic crash is being caused by something else - you know, like libruls, communists, OPEC, gays, speculators, or whatever boogeyman of the week you all try to diagnose in your infinite ignorance.

I'm going away for a few days, pumpkin. I know you'll miss me, but I'll be back to deal with the avoidance game you played in the other threads regarding the EIA figures.


----------



## Douger

I'll go out on a limb here and predict $125 a barrel by July 1.


----------



## JiggsCasey

Douger said:


> I'll go out on a limb here and predict $125 a barrel by July 1.



Very possible. But I try to avoid short-term price predictions. Crushed demand (recession, depression, war, famine, etc.) can bring the prices right back down.

I try to focus on global production and export rates, and the behavior and investment desperation of oil companies.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please tell us why peak oil priests say we don't discover as much as we consume when obviously we do.
> 
> If you think the EIA inaccurately counted the numbers, please, tell us why. Do you have information showing they counted something which doesn't exist?
> 
> Come on Jiggys, fire off a random neuron already, put down the peaker bible and THINK about this stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's official then. Your entire, arrogant, smarmy argument rests on the "wonders" of unconventional oil.
Click to expand...


I certainly did not say that. And you appear to be dodging the question. Why don't you just take an honest crack at answering the question?



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Everyone knows this, especially Robert Hirsch, the IEA and all the other sources you desperately try to spin.



Spin? So far I have examined a single report you referenced, and I have done so to demonstrate why it contradicts the idea you assign to it. I recommend reading the reports prior to misrepresenting them.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> So for all your blabber, the core of your argument is to insist that a 3:1 return on investment process (unconventionals) can magically and seamlessly become a 20:1 return on investment (as is light crude), as well as provide ever-increasing rates of volume. And do all this in short order, so as to maintain stasis for complex societies already rapidly dying. ... Riiiiight.



I assume you don't even know what heavy oil is with a wiki cut and paste to fake it, or what IRR is for that matter. Your last "I'll trade you 2 barrels for 5" routine went horribly wrong, do you really want to demonstrate your mathematical abilities again?



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> I'm going away for a few days, pumpkin. I know you'll miss me, but I'll be back to deal with the avoidance game you played in the other threads regarding the EIA figures.



Good. Try and read something.Come back with an answer this time instead of this make believe "produce oil from dirt" routine...which strikes me as nearly nonsensical and just an attempt to avoid confronting the answer.  To whit: Why do peakers insist that the world consumers more than it discovers when such a statement is patently untrue?


----------



## Big Fitz

RGR, don't bother with King Chicken Little the Last.  His goalposts move so often, you can't tell what sport you're playing.  If it's not 'light sweet crude' it's not oil in his book and therefore can never be used.  But he's all for the fantasy of solar, wind and other fanciful forms of energy that have been proven to be utterly incapable of picking up the load for centuries.

Don't bother even responding to him.  I think he's cut and pasting all the meat of his 'arguments' for the last few months.  If it weren't for you quoting him, I couldn't have confirmed it.  But save yourself the waste of time and just let him howl in lunacy alone.


----------



## RGR

Big Fitz said:


> Don't bother even responding to him.  I think he's cut and pasting all the meat of his 'arguments' for the last few months.  If it weren't for you quoting him, I couldn't have confirmed it.  But save yourself the waste of time and just let him howl in lunacy alone.



Yeah, I did notice the strong profile of a parrot in the way he responds. He certainly dances away from single individual questions by just name calling everyone else who hasn't "seen the light" as it were.


----------



## Mr. H.

Well, there's always that $3 gas thread.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/energy/150706-3-a-gallon-gas-is-an-outrage-or-is-it-a-miracle.html


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please tell us why peak oil priests say we don't discover as much as we consume when obviously we do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When talking about light crude, the kind with the highest EROEI, the statement is most certainly true. When you're desperately trying to do is add technically recoverable reserve totals and heavy oils  to the energy total.
> 
> In other words, when discussing oranges, you're desperately squawking "we're not running out of oranges!! just look at all these apples!!!"
> 
> At some point in this discussion, you'll actually get your head around that fact.
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly did not say that. And you appear to be dodging the question. Why don't you just take an honest crack at answering the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet, when challenged to present just what kind of liquids the EIA is referring to in that equation, you ignored the request and just kept repeating "answer the question!! <bacaw!!>
> 
> Parrot, indeed.
> 
> The additional reserves the EIA is talking about includes far less efficient unconventional "finds" that will not sustain economic growth. This is about cheap energy, or net energy. Not the trillions in "oil from clay" that people like you try to conflate into the equation.
> 
> So, like I said pages ago: You can not point to a new find of light crude in excess of a few billion barrels anywhere on Earth for decades. What we are surviving on is the existing fields, the discovery for which peaked in the mid 1960s. Most of those fields are dying... Rapidly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spin? So far I have examined a single report you referenced, and I have done so to demonstrate why it contradicts the idea you assign to it. I recommend reading the reports prior to misrepresenting them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've read every word of the Hirsch Report. You, clearly, have not. You haven't demonstrated anything at all, champ. Besides pretending heavy oil deserves to be included and can sustain societies.
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So for all your blabber, the core of your argument is to insist that a 3:1 return on investment process (unconventionals) can magically and seamlessly become a 20:1 return on investment (as is light crude), as well as provide ever-increasing rates of volume. And do all this in short order, so as to maintain stasis for complex societies already rapidly dying. ... Riiiiight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assume you don't even know what heavy oil is with a wiki cut and paste to fake it, or what IRR is for that matter. Your last "I'll trade you 2 barrels for 5" routine went horribly wrong, do you really want to demonstrate your mathematical abilities again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You "assume" every aspect of this discussion. It's hardly surprising you'd "assume" what you think I don't know. LOL.
> 
> I'll let you keep arguing with that straw man, even though you lamely tried to pass off Bakken oil extraction as feasible by referring only to its end yield API. FAIL.
> 
> You're not fooling anyone here, snake oil salesman. Well, maybe the parroting disciples in your own camp who don't know any better.
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going away for a few days, pumpkin. I know you'll miss me, but I'll be back to deal with the avoidance game you played in the other threads regarding the EIA figures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good. Try and read something.Come back with an answer this time instead of this make believe "produce oil from dirt" routine...which strikes me as nearly nonsensical and just an attempt to avoid confronting the answer.  To whit: Why do peakers insist that the world consumers more than it discovers when such a statement is patently untrue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At this point in this exchange, it's clear I have a far wider range of reading material on the subject than you're faking.
> 
> The world consumes more light crude than it discovers. That most definitely IS true.
> 
> U.S. production = past peak and dying.
> Venezuelan production = dying.
> Mexico production = dying.
> North Sea production = dying.
> Indonesia production = dying.
> Russian production = dying.
> Kuwaiti production = dying.
> 
> Saudi production = probably dying, considering they're keeping it secret, yet injecting sea water into their biggest fields.
> 
> "It's where is always been!"
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## westwall

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> When talking about light crude, the kind with the highest EROEI, the statement is most certainly true. When you're desperately trying to do is add technically recoverable reserve totals and heavy oils  to the energy total.
> 
> In other words, when discussing oranges, you're desperately squawking "we're not running out of oranges!! just look at all these apples!!!"
> 
> At some point in this discussion, you'll actually get your head around that fact.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, when challenged to present just what kind of liquids the EIA is referring to in that equation, you ignored the request and just kept repeating "answer the question!! <bacaw!!>
> 
> Parrot, indeed.
> 
> The additional reserves the EIA is talking about includes far less efficient unconventional "finds" that will not sustain economic growth. This is about cheap energy, or net energy. Not the trillions in "oil from clay" that people like you try to conflate into the equation.
> 
> So, like I said pages ago: You can not point to a new find of light crude in excess of a few billion barrels anywhere on Earth for decades. What we are surviving on is the existing fields, the discovery for which peaked in the mid 1960s. Most of those fields are dying... Rapidly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've read every word of the Hirsch Report. You, clearly, have not. You haven't demonstrated anything at all, champ. Besides pretending heavy oil deserves to be included and can sustain societies.
> 
> 
> 
> You "assume" every aspect of this discussion. It's hardly surprising you'd "assume" what you think I don't know. LOL.
> 
> I'll let you keep arguing with that straw man, even though you lamely tried to pass off Bakken oil extraction as feasible by referring only to its end yield API. FAIL.
> 
> You're not fooling anyone here, snake oil salesman. Well, maybe the parroting disciples in your own camp who don't know any better.
> 
> 
> 
> At this point in this exchange, it's clear I have a far wider range of reading material on the subject than you're faking.
> 
> The world consumes more light crude than it discovers. That most definitely IS true.
> 
> U.S. production = past peak and dying.
> Venezuelan production = dying.
> Mexico production = dying.
> North Sea production = dying.
> Indonesia production = dying.
> Russian production = dying.
> Kuwaiti production = dying.
> 
> Saudi production = probably dying, considering they're keeping it secret, yet injecting sea water into their biggest fields.
> 
> "It's where is always been!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing that is clear is that RGR has handed you your ass with every stupid assertion you have uttered.  You clearly know as much about the reserves of oil as you do about the English language and I believe I handed you your ass on that one.  So, thanks for playing and the elementary school is on the next corner, maybe you can impress them with your factual posturing.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## JiggsCasey

westwall said:


> The only thing that is clear is that RGR has handed you your ass with every stupid assertion you have uttered.  You clearly know as much about the reserves of oil as you do about the English language and I believe I handed you your ass on that one.  So, thanks for playing and the elementary school is on the next corner, maybe you can impress them with your factual posturing.



Oh, hey there track obstruction! The pack lapped you long ago, that's why no one responds to your goofiness any longer.

Once again. Where is the light crude going forward? Or, that's right... It's in the shale and tar sands. 

You did better when you parroted Thomas Gold theory. Run along, Westward.


----------



## westwall

JiggsCasey said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing that is clear is that RGR has handed you your ass with every stupid assertion you have uttered.  You clearly know as much about the reserves of oil as you do about the English language and I believe I handed you your ass on that one.  So, thanks for playing and the elementary school is on the next corner, maybe you can impress them with your factual posturing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, hey there track obstruction! The pack lapped you long ago, that's why no one responds to your goofiness any longer.
> 
> Once again. Where is the light crude going forward? Or, that's right... It's in the shale and tar sands.
> 
> You did better when you parroted Thomas Gold theory. Run along, Westward.
Click to expand...






Uhhh, the parrot is you.  Why do you only count light saweet crude?  I've asked three times and you have yet to get back to me on that question.  So like I said, the elementary school is on the next block.  Enjoy


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> When talking about light crude, the kind with the highest EROEI, the statement is most certainly true. When you're desperately trying to do is add technically recoverable reserve totals and heavy oils  to the energy total.



Oil is not measured by, defined by, given the go ahead to drill for or value calculated on by using EROEI. Ever. In the history of the oil business.

Please do not introduce your religious concepts into a perfectly nice conversation about oil.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> The additional reserves the EIA is talking about includes far less efficient unconventional "finds" that will not sustain economic growth. This is about cheap energy, or net energy. Not the trillions in "oil from clay" that people like you try to conflate into the equation.



You yourself have claimed that you would trade me your5 barrels of crude in exchange for my 2. Please explain how this ridiculous claim of how EROEI work does anything else other than make me as rich as Bill Gates?



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Most of those fields are dying... Rapidly.



Please reference your knowledge on dying fields. For example, when will the Spraberry field be dead?



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> I've read every word of the Hirsch Report. You, clearly, have not. You haven't demonstrated anything at all, champ. Besides pretending heavy oil deserves to be included and can sustain societies.



Please refute the points I quoted from Hirsch. The ideas expressed were his, I simply pointed out how he has been disproven by reality. And how, if he had used the geologic evidence he ignored prior to publication, he might not now look so foolish.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> At this point in this exchange, it's clear I have a far wider range of reading material on the subject than you're faking.



At this point in the exchange we know you can't google up EIA information without someone telling you what to google. We know you aren't capable of debating Hirsch's incorrect geologic basis for his oil or natural gas prediction. We know you don't know anything about the use of EROEI within the oil industry in the past century and a half. And we know that you can't even get a 2:5 ratio of oil exchange worked out to be in your favor. 

Did I miss anything?



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> The world consumes more light crude than it discovers. That most definitely IS true.



Womens shoes...red....size 5.5....with a buckle...and only if the factories stop producing them.

As far as oil goes...we've got the quarter century long example already provided. But since you obviously don't get out much...

2010 Crude Oil: 50 Billion Barrels Discovered, 30 Billion Barrels Used | Oil Price.com

Now run off and consult your Bible....there is bound to be another parable in there which you haven't tried out yet.....


----------



## boedicca

*$5 GAS IN 2012!?!?!!!!!!*


This must be why GEORGE LUCAS things the world will end in 2012.

_Famed "Star Wars" creator George Lucas fears 2012 will mark the end of the world.

At least, that's what Seth Rogen is reportedly saying.

The "Green Hornet" actor is quoted by the Toronto Sun as relaying a story during which he was treated to a 25-minute yarn by Lucas about why the world will end next year -- which did not include the Death Star.

"George Lucas sits down and seriously proceeds to talk for around 25 minutes about how he thinks the world is gonna end in the year 2012," Rogen is quoted as saying. "Like, for real. He thinks it."..._

George Lucas fears world will end in 2012, at least that&#39;s what Seth Rogen may think


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> Oil is not measured by, defined by, given the go ahead to drill for or value calculated on by using EROEI. Ever. In the history of the oil business.



But then, straw man champion, we're talking about the comparison of energy efficiency between oranges (my charge) and apples (your extrapolation).  Thus, EROEI is quite relevant when comparing very different sources of energy. Tool.

Regardless, as a CEO, if you feel you can get rich spending a barrel of inputs in order to get a mere three to market, by all means, please do bankrupt your business trying to do so. 

Obviously the oil industry DOES consider the rate of return before drilling, otherwise it would have exploited said shale/sands reserves YEARS ago, rather than depend on far cheaper LIGHT CRUDE for decades. What do you still fail to understand about this very easy-to-understand discussion?



RGR said:


> Please do not introduce your religious concepts into a perfectly nice conversation about oil.



LOL. Religious concepts? Irony. What's your own excuse, Drebbin?

Regardless, this conversation hasn't been "nice" since you entered it, and immediately started acting like an "arrogant prick," to use your own words. At what point in this exchange do you stop lying?



RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The additional reserves the EIA is talking about includes far less efficient unconventional "finds" that will not sustain economic growth. This is about cheap energy, or net energy. Not the trillions in "oil from clay" that people like you try to conflate into the equation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You yourself have claimed that you would trade me your5 barrels of crude in exchange for my 2. Please explain how this ridiculous claim of how EROEI work does anything else other than make me as rich as Bill Gates?
Click to expand...


What in God's name are you talking about? Link to where I said exactly that.



RGR said:


> Please reference your knowledge on dying fields. For example, when will the Spraberry field be dead?



There you go, changing the goalposts again. I said dying production of nations/regions. Of course, in your perpetual fraud, you wanna switch the discussion to individual, specific tiny fields, including one you can spin.

Do you want to talk about individual fields? Very well... How about super giants like Ghawar, Burgan and Cantarell? All in decline. Romashkino? Samotlor? Same.

I can verify those giants if you like (via the IEA/EIA), or you can squawk about piddly pools in west Texas some more, if you prefer, and pretend it does much of anything for your greater argument.



RGR said:


> Please refute the points I quoted from Hirsch. The ideas expressed were his, I simply pointed out how he has been disproven by reality. And how, if he had used the geologic evidence he ignored prior to publication, he might not now look so foolish.



LOL. You did absolutely no such thing. All you did was conflate heavy, far-more-expensive oils with light crude. Oops.



RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At this point in this exchange, it's clear I have a far wider range of reading material on the subject than you're faking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At this point in the exchange we know you can't google up EIA information without someone telling you what to google. We know you aren't capable of debating Hirsch's incorrect geologic basis for his oil or natural gas prediction. We know you don't know anything about the use of EROEI within the oil industry in the past century and a half. And we know that you can't even get a 2:5 ratio of oil exchange worked out to be in your favor.
> 
> Did I miss anything?
Click to expand...


You're an excellent dancer, denialist. But none of those things have been demonstrated at all. You're not fooling anyone here.

Again, please link the 2:5 reference you're alluding to. 

You increasingly look like a coward who ducks specific challenges, and instead proclaims "you can't answer me!!!" over and over again.

You suck at this, and your only ploy is to pretend vastly more expensive oil and gas shale can be injected into the fundamental equation. It can't. 

Because what we're covering here is net energy, and you are well aware that heavy oils do not yield abundant net energy.


----------



## Old Rocks

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> When talking about light crude, the kind with the highest EROEI, the statement is most certainly true. When you're desperately trying to do is add technically recoverable reserve totals and heavy oils  to the energy total.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oil is not measured by, defined by, given the go ahead to drill for or value calculated on by using EROEI. Ever. In the history of the oil business.
> 
> Please do not introduce your religious concepts into a perfectly nice conversation about oil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The additional reserves the EIA is talking about includes far less efficient unconventional "finds" that will not sustain economic growth. This is about cheap energy, or net energy. Not the trillions in "oil from clay" that people like you try to conflate into the equation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You yourself have claimed that you would trade me your5 barrels of crude in exchange for my 2. Please explain how this ridiculous claim of how EROEI work does anything else other than make me as rich as Bill Gates?
> 
> 
> 
> Please reference your knowledge on dying fields. For example, when will the Spraberry field be dead?
> 
> 
> 
> Please refute the points I quoted from Hirsch. The ideas expressed were his, I simply pointed out how he has been disproven by reality. And how, if he had used the geologic evidence he ignored prior to publication, he might not now look so foolish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At this point in this exchange, it's clear I have a far wider range of reading material on the subject than you're faking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At this point in the exchange we know you can't google up EIA information without someone telling you what to google. We know you aren't capable of debating Hirsch's incorrect geologic basis for his oil or natural gas prediction. We know you don't know anything about the use of EROEI within the oil industry in the past century and a half. And we know that you can't even get a 2:5 ratio of oil exchange worked out to be in your favor.
> 
> Did I miss anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The world consumes more light crude than it discovers. That most definitely IS true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Womens shoes...red....size 5.5....with a buckle...and only if the factories stop producing them.
> 
> As far as oil goes...we've got the quarter century long example already provided. But since you obviously don't get out much...
> 
> 2010 Crude Oil: 50 Billion Barrels Discovered, 30 Billion Barrels Used | Oil Price.com
> 
> Now run off and consult your Bible....there is bound to be another parable in there which you haven't tried out yet.....
Click to expand...


Crude Oil Supply - The Oil Age: World Oil Production 1859?1950., Oil and Gas Journal, Le Monde, Scientific American

Especially compelling is the history of discoveries versus production rates for the world (Figure 1). Since the 1970s the rate of discovery has fallen steadily, while production (use) has continued to climb at nearly 2% per year. The gap between the two, when projected beyond 2005 with the assumption of no major discoveries, leads to a peak in production in the year 2010 

Read more: Crude Oil Supply - The Oil Age: World Oil Production 18591950., Oil and Gas Journal, Le Monde, Scientific American Crude Oil Supply - The Oil Age: World Oil Production 1859?1950., Oil and Gas Journal, Le Monde, Scientific American


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> 2010 Crude Oil: 50 Billion Barrels Discovered, 30 Billion Barrels Used | Oil Price.com
> 
> Now run off and consult your Bible....there is bound to be another parable in there which you haven't tried out yet.....



LOL. By the way, convenient of you to allude to estimated, ultra-deep water finds under salt formations. Doing so with your obligatory arrogance, which makes you look extra stupid.

I can SAY we've found technically recoverable reserves approaching 10 trillion barrels under the surface of the moon if I like. Doesn't mean we can ever afford to get to it, even if it was proven to exist.


----------



## westwall

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oil is not measured by, defined by, given the go ahead to drill for or value calculated on by using EROEI. Ever. In the history of the oil business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But then, straw man champion, we're talking about the comparison of energy efficiency between oranges (my charge) and apples (your extrapolation).  Thus, EROEI is quite relevant when comparing very different sources of energy. Tool.
> 
> Regardless, as a CEO, if you feel you can get rich spending a barrel of inputs in order to get a mere three to market, by all means, please do bankrupt your business trying to do so.
> 
> Obviously the oil industry DOES consider the rate of return before drilling, otherwise it would have exploited said shale/sands reserves YEARS ago, rather than depend on far cheaper LIGHT CRUDE for decades. What do you still fail to understand about this very easy-to-understand discussion?
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please do not introduce your religious concepts into a perfectly nice conversation about oil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL. Religious concepts? Irony. What's your own excuse, Drebbin?
> 
> Regardless, this conversation hasn't been "nice" since you entered it, and immediately started acting like an "arrogant prick," to use your own words. At what point in this exchange do you stop lying?
> 
> 
> 
> What in God's name are you talking about? Link to where I said exactly that.
> 
> 
> 
> There you go, changing the goalposts again. I said dying production of nations/regions. Of course, in your perpetual fraud, you wanna switch the discussion to individual, specific tiny fields, including one you can spin.
> 
> Do you want to talk about individual fields? Very well... How about super giants like Ghawar, Burgan and Cantarell? All in decline. Romashkino? Samotlor? Same.
> 
> I can verify those giants if you like (via the IEA/EIA), or you can squawk about piddly pools in west Texas some more, if you prefer, and pretend it does much of anything for your greater argument.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. You did absolutely no such thing. All you did was conflate heavy, far-more-expensive oils with light crude. Oops.
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At this point in this exchange, it's clear I have a far wider range of reading material on the subject than you're faking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At this point in the exchange we know you can't google up EIA information without someone telling you what to google. We know you aren't capable of debating Hirsch's incorrect geologic basis for his oil or natural gas prediction. We know you don't know anything about the use of EROEI within the oil industry in the past century and a half. And we know that you can't even get a 2:5 ratio of oil exchange worked out to be in your favor.
> 
> Did I miss anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an excellent dancer, denialist. But none of those things have been demonstrated at all. You're not fooling anyone here.
> 
> Again, please link the 2:5 reference you're alluding to.
> 
> You increasingly look like a coward who ducks specific challenges, and instead proclaims "you can't answer me!!!" over and over again.
> 
> You suck at this, and your only ploy is to pretend vastly more expensive oil and gas shale can be injected into the fundamental equation. It can't.
> 
> Because what we're covering here is net energy, and you are well aware that heavy oils do not yield abundant net energy.
Click to expand...




That would be this quote from this thread, man, your short term memory is as bad as your math and English language skills.

"Recognizing their vastly greater costs is somehow "discrimination" against unconventional sources? LOL. Could you BE more pretentious when you misrepresent my point?

You can point to a mountain range that contains 50 trillion barrels of oil shale if you like. But if it costs 2 barrels to get every 5 barrels to market, it's going to do zero for the global economy. Get it yet?"



http://www.usmessageboard.com/energ...s-dispel-peak-oil-as-myth-21.html#post3159494


----------



## JiggsCasey

westwall said:


> That would be this quote from this thread, man, your short term memory is as bad as your math and English language skills.
> 
> "Recognizing their vastly greater costs is somehow "discrimination" against unconventional sources? LOL. Could you BE more pretentious when you misrepresent my point?
> 
> You can point to a mountain range that contains 50 trillion barrels of oil shale if you like. But if it costs 2 barrels to get every 5 barrels to market, it's going to do zero for the global economy. Get it yet?"
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/energ...s-dispel-peak-oil-as-myth-21.html#post3159494



Right, but that does not jibe with what RGR is trying to reshape at all.

You and your pal there distorted the statement away from a comment about global economy and energy's relation to growth, and into some irrelevant point about how "rich" you'd get if you were said oil company CEO. What??????? Miss the point much?

Do you believe western governments would continue to subsidize something that yields that kind of return on investment? 2.5:1?

Once again, we are where we are because of a 100:1 ratio, down to today's very strained, yet still passable 15:1 ratio. 

2.5:1 (from heavy oils) will NOT maintain an economic paradigm utterly dependent upon 7% annual growth. What don't you understand about that assertion?


----------



## westwall

JiggsCasey said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be this quote from this thread, man, your short term memory is as bad as your math and English language skills.
> 
> "Recognizing their vastly greater costs is somehow "discrimination" against unconventional sources? LOL. Could you BE more pretentious when you misrepresent my point?
> 
> You can point to a mountain range that contains 50 trillion barrels of oil shale if you like. But if it costs 2 barrels to get every 5 barrels to market, it's going to do zero for the global economy. Get it yet?"
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/energ...s-dispel-peak-oil-as-myth-21.html#post3159494
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, but that does not jibe with what RGR is trying to reshape at all.
> 
> You and your pal there distorted the statement away from a comment about global economy and energy's relation to growth, and into some irrelevant point about how "rich" you'd get if you were said oil company CEO. What??????? Miss the point much?
> 
> Do you believe western governments would continue to subsidize something that yields that kind of return on investment? 2.5:1?
> 
> Once again, we are where we are because of a 100:1 ratio, down to today's very strained, yet still passable 15:1 ratio.
> 
> 2.5:1 (from heavy oils) will NOT maintain an economic paradigm utterly dependent upon 7% annual growth. What don't you understand about that assertion?
Click to expand...





Now you are suddenly unable to read what you wrote?  You said "if it costs 2 barrels to get 5 barrels to market it's going to do zero for the global economy.  Get it yet?"

And we said, yes we'll take that ROI any day of the week.  That would be FAR better than what the oil companies currently earn.

So, to sum up,  you don't understand the oil business.  You have no understanding of geology.  You are not conversant with the English language.  You can't add.  You don't understand simple economics.  You need to go back to school dude!


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oil is not measured by, defined by, given the go ahead to drill for or value calculated on by using EROEI. Ever. In the history of the oil business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously the oil industry DOES consider the rate of return before drilling, otherwise it would have exploited said shale/sands reserves YEARS ago, rather than depend on far cheaper LIGHT CRUDE for decades. What do you still fail to understand about this very easy-to-understand discussion?
Click to expand...


A) IRR is not EROEI. I recommend google for learning the difference.
B) Shale (gas) began production in 1825. Which even in a peakers world qualifies as "years ago".
C) Light sweet crude is also produced from these shales, dating back into the 19th century.

Learn some history already. Put down your Bible, and pick up a BOOK already.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Regardless, this conversation hasn't been "nice" since you entered it, and immediately started acting like an "arrogant prick," to use your own words. At what point in this exchange do you stop lying?



Read what I wrote about the Hirsch report. Refute ANY of it. I dare you.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Again, please link the 2:5 reference you're alluding to.



I refuse. It is not my job to remember where you sprinkled ridiculously ignorant claims in these threads, only that you did, and what they were. After you did it, you tucked tail and ran. Smartest thing you've done since I showed up here. And was completely predictable. 



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> You increasingly look like a coward who ducks specific challenges, and instead proclaims "you can't answer me!!!" over and over again.



Liar.

You requested a specific rebuttal of the Hirsch report. I gave it to you. So far, you haven't responded to the specific quotes and information I used from within that report to show why it is wrong. Refute what I wrote. Refute what Hirsch wrote. I dare you.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Because what we're covering here is net energy, and you are well aware that heavy oils do not yield abundant net energy.



The topic for this thread isn't heavy oil either. And I will bet you don't know any more about net energy or heavy oil than you do Hirsch's report.


----------



## westwall

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oil is not measured by, defined by, given the go ahead to drill for or value calculated on by using EROEI. Ever. In the history of the oil business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously the oil industry DOES consider the rate of return before drilling, otherwise it would have exploited said shale/sands reserves YEARS ago, rather than depend on far cheaper LIGHT CRUDE for decades. What do you still fail to understand about this very easy-to-understand discussion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A) IRR is not EROEI. I recommend google for learning the difference.
> B) Shale (gas) began production in 1825. Which even in a peakers world qualifies as "years ago".
> C) Light sweet crude is also produced from these shales, dating back into the 19th century.
> 
> Learn some history already. Put down your Bible, and pick up a BOOK already.
> 
> 
> 
> Read what I wrote about the Hirsch report. Refute ANY of it. I dare you.
> 
> 
> 
> I refuse. It is not my job to remember where you sprinkled ridiculously ignorant claims in these threads, only that you did, and what they were. After you did it, you tucked tail and ran. Smartest thing you've done since I showed up here. And was completely predictable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You increasingly look like a coward who ducks specific challenges, and instead proclaims "you can't answer me!!!" over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar.
> 
> You requested a specific rebuttal of the Hirsch report. I gave it to you. So far, you haven't responded to the specific quotes and information I used from within that report to show why it is wrong. Refute what I wrote. Refute what Hirsch wrote. I dare you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because what we're covering here is net energy, and you are well aware that heavy oils do not yield abundant net energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The topic for this thread isn't heavy oil either. And I will bet you don't know any more about net energy or heavy oil than you do Hirsch's report.
Click to expand...





I reposted jiggys idiotic comment above.  That way everyone could see what a fool he is.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> 2.5:1 (from heavy oils) will NOT maintain an economic paradigm utterly dependent upon 7% annual growth. What don't you understand about that assertion?



I'm becoming amazed that you can spell the word "oil". 

Assert all you'd like. Assert Santa Claus is invisible..it would be as relevant to the topic at hand as most anything else you've "asserted".


----------



## westwall

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2.5:1 (from heavy oils) will NOT maintain an economic paradigm utterly dependent upon 7% annual growth. What don't you understand about that assertion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm becoming amazed that you can spell the word "oil".
> 
> Assert all you'd like. Assert Santa Claus is invisible..it would be as relevant to the topic at hand as most anything else you've "asserted".
Click to expand...


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> A) IRR is not EROEI. I recommend google for learning the difference.



Where did I indicate is was the same? You're trying to steer the discussion in a different direction, and ignore my point. Who gives a fuck? I didn't say a word about IRR.

EROEI is quite relevant when we're comparing different sources of energy. Don't lie to the forum again.



RGR said:


> B) Shale (gas) began production in 1825. Which even in a peakers world qualifies as "years ago".



Great. And what kind of progress have they made? Barely much of any. You've just underscored my point. If it was a desirable and efficient source of energy, it would have become a vastly expanded industry a very long time ago. Not just in Texas. 

I love when you point to a mole hill, and pretend it's a mountain. It's what you do. Adorable.



RGR said:


> C) Light sweet crude is also produced from these shales, dating back into the 19th century.



But requiring ENORMOUS inputs to extract and refine to that grade, which is really the entire point you prefer to willfully ignore in this entire debate.



RGR said:


> Learn some history already. Put down your Bible, and pick up a BOOK already.



LOL. Such a dick. You think you've enlightened me somehow, yet you're too retarded to acknowledge basic input vs. output ratio. But it IS amusingly ironic that you'd mention the Bible and books, considering your entire platform is based on HOPE, not data.

"It's where it's ALWAYS been!"



RGR said:


> Read what I wrote about the Hirsch report. Refute ANY of it. I dare you.



Are you talking about this post, pumpkin?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3201600-post117.html

The one where you pretended Hirsch was wrong, overall, based on the shale gas "boom?"

The one where you made two retarded assertions without any link to back them up?

1) that "Natural gas supplies from shale gas exploded" (as if supply estimates somehow means actual production capability)

and 

2) that Hirsch "ignores the geology"... (rich irony there)

You were challenged to show how much annual shale gas production actually occurs in this country, and you ignored it. That's because speculation based on claims of "technically recoverable" gas shale deposits is not actual production of those resources. If it were cost effective to contaminate our water supply and get that shale gas, we would have "exploded" the industry (to use your unfortunate term).

Like I said, anyone can CLAIM there a trillions of cubic meters of gas from rock. Getting to it in any abundance at affordable cost is all that matters.

You didn't show that Hirsch was ultimately wrong.  You asserted he was wrong for YOUR apples to oranges criteria.  Gas from shale is not the same as easily accessible pools of LNG. That includes the new, disgusting fracktacular procedure I bet you're all aflutter over, huh great advocate of fossil fuel gluttony?

The market will realize that most shale wells will be a total train-wreck in ANY flat-price environment. To drill for shale gas is to bet on a price spike. Once the price has spiked however, it cannot just go flat for the Johnie-come-latelys to profit. Why? Due to "Receding Horizons". The cost to drill rises 10 to often 20 times faster than the increase in NG prices during a spike. You can walk to the horizon, but you will NEVER get there with a low EROEI play like shale gas.



> Shale-Gas Drilling in U.S. May Stall as Below-Production Prices Erode Cash
> 
> Shale-gas drilling slowdown predicted - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
> By Edward Klump - Apr 23, 2010
> 
> Drilling in U.S. shale-gas formations may tumble as companies run short of cash after prices for the fuel languished below the cost of production for more than a year.
> 
> Natural-gas explorers will realize the need to cut drilling in the next few months, said *Murry Gerber, chairman of EQT Corp., the largest producer in the Appalachian Basin. &#8220;I think the rig count is going to come down, and then you&#8217;ll see the production follow,&#8221;* he said in a telephone interview.
> 
> *&#8220;Investors have expressed, some of them at least, their concern about what appears to be an irrational resolve to continue drilling,&#8221;* said Arthur Berman, director of Labyrinth Consulting Services near Houston.* &#8220;I expect that that sentiment will perhaps become stronger.&#8221;*
> 
> James Halloran, a consultant at Financial America Securities in Cleveland, said that under some contracts with landowners, producers risk losing leases if they don&#8217;t drill. Gas prices will remain low &#8220;until somebody wakes up in this whole thing and says, &#8216;I haven&#8217;t got any money, I can&#8217;t do this anymore,&#8217;&#8221; he said.
> 
> *After continuing to drill at money-losing prices to show investors gains in reserves and output, many producers won&#8217;t have enough cash to fund new wells at their recent pace, said Berman of Labyrinth Consulting. *
> 
> &#8220;The current gas-pricing fundamentals don&#8217;t seem to support the degree of dry gas activity which is under way at the moment,&#8221; Tim Probert, president of global business lines at Houston-based Halliburton, told investors on an April 19 conference call. &#8220;We certainly see that weakening.&#8221;
> 
> Petrohawk Energy Corp. said April 13 that it will cut its number of rigs in the Haynesville Shale of Louisiana and Texas by 20 percent and increase drilling for more lucrative gas liquids in South Texas. Houston-based Petrohawk also agreed to sell a stake in its Haynesville pipelines for $875 million and cut its capital budget by $100 million.
> 
> Joan Dunlap, vice president of investor relations at Petrohawk, declined to say at what gas price the company&#8217;s wells can break even.
> 
> Shale joint ventures signed with major oil companies by such producers as Chesapeake Energy Corp. and Atlas Energy Inc., as well as the sale of XTO to Exxon Mobil Corp., may help slow drilling, said Haag Sherman, chief investment officer at Salient Partners in Houston.






RGR said:


> I refuse. It is not my job to remember where you sprinkled ridiculously ignorant claims in these threads, only that you did, and what they were. After you did it, you tucked tail and ran. Smartest thing you've done since I showed up here. And was completely predictable.



LOL. You keep telling yourself that, smarm king. What you did was distort my point, and turn an exchange about EROEI and the global economy into a dumb hypothetical about a CEO's personal profit margin.

But let's get something clear right up front: I don't tuck tail and run from "nothing to see here" zealots. Especially those who enter the forum conceding oil is a finite resource. I may be away for a few days, but nothing you have yet presented has me concerned in the least, and I never avoid bloviating, arrogant instigators like you. I enjoy them.

Keep at it. And perhaps you can continue your pretentious, ineffectual narrative of what "peakers think", their psychological motives (LOL), and how increased reliance on dirty oils can maintain a seamless transition for complex societies. It's done wonders for you so far (LOL squared).



RGR said:


> Liar.



Irony.



RGR said:


> You requested a specific rebuttal of the Hirsch report. I gave it to you. So far, you haven't responded to the specific quotes and information I used from within that report to show why it is wrong. Refute what I wrote. Refute what Hirsch wrote. I dare you.



Actually, yes I did. Covered at the time, and above. 

You pretended gas shale discoveries trump Hirsch's liquid fuels outlook overall. Yet, when asked to summarize total annual shale gas production, so as to put shale gas into perspective, you "tucked tail and ran," which is the best decision you've made since you joined the forum.


See you next week, for your latest round of spin on heavy oil/gas reserves. Perhaps a new claim of low grade uranium deposits as well! Or maybe you'll just punt to "peaker psychology" pseudo-intellectual trolling. That's what your personal cheerleader below really gets excited about.


----------



## JiggsCasey

westwall said:


>



LOL... You've been melted down to nothing more than a sideline cheerleader now. Classic.

Ah well. George Bush was a cheerleader, and he became the leader of the free world!


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> A) IRR is not EROEI. I recommend google for learning the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who gives a fuck? I didn't say a word about IRR.
Click to expand...


Actually...you did. Westwall pointed out where. You contrived an example whereby someone will trade you 2 of something in exchange for 5. This defines IRR of the particular scenario. Google it up and learn something already.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> EROEI is quite relevant when we're comparing different sources of energy. Don't lie to the forum again.



Refute my past statements on the use of EROEI in the industry you are pretending to understand. I was definitive in how useless it is. A single example is all it takes to refute my global statement. 



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> But requiring ENORMOUS inputs to extract and refine to that grade, which is really the entire point you prefer to willfully ignore in this entire debate.



You do not understand what an enormous input is. Initially, it consisted of a handdug well 27 feet deep. In the peaker world is a 27' hole in the ground enormous? Or does it just look that way to ignorant people who have never actually drilled a well before in their life?



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Are you talking about this post, pumpkin?
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3201600-post117.html
> 
> The one where you pretended Hirsch was wrong, overall, based on the shale gas "boom?"



You apparently can't even read what I wrote, and why it matters. Do you know what a precedent is? A precept? How scientific thought works? Do you understand the difference between statistics and geology? Do you actually KNOW anything?



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> You were challenged to show how much annual shale gas production actually occurs in this country, and you ignored it.



The original challenge was yours. I used your favorite report very specifically. Refute it please. 



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> You can walk to the horizon, but you will NEVER get there with a low EROEI play like shale gas.



What a wonderfully stupid analogy. Its nearly incoherent. Does your bible not cover this scenario, whereby the peaker has backed themselves into a corner on a topic they don't understand, is it recommended in peaker land that they now "insert ridiculous statement" prior to tucking tail and running? Again.

I was very specific about the parts of the Hirsch report I used. Read it and refute what I said. Not with yet another ridiculous assertion on your part, you have an entire report to use as your ammunition. Try thinking about the topic for a change. I dare you.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> You requested a specific rebuttal of the Hirsch report. I gave it to you. So far, you haven't responded to the specific quotes and information I used from within that report to show why it is wrong. Refute what I wrote. Refute what Hirsch wrote. I dare you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, yes I did. Covered at the time, and above.
Click to expand...


Not at all. You didn't reference a single word Hirsch said. You made more assertions, which in your world must appear substantial, but in the real world are the equivalent of invisible Santa Claus. Reference a paragraph. A snippet. A claim by someone who knows something about the industry, which obviously isn't YOU. Do it properly, and maybe I'll consider for a nanosecond that you aren't some ignorant peaker sock puppet, unreeling the bible out for all to see in the hopes of scaring more noobs to your religion.

You challenged me to dissemble your favorite report. I did so. Then you vanished. Go back to that thread and try and concentrate...try and focus...and then try and refute what Hirsch said, and I referenced. Try and ignore the urge to resort to bible thumping tactics, and just explain, in a paragraph or three, why Hirsch really didn't mean what he said. And why me noticing was incorrect. Feel free to use another reference if you'd like. Make sure to include the proper footnote so I can round it up in its entirety.


----------



## westwall

JiggsCasey said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL... You've been melted down to nothing more than a sideline cheerleader now. Classic.
> 
> Ah well. George Bush was a cheerleader, and he became the leader of the free world!
Click to expand...





No, not melted down at all.  I just feel it unsporting to pile on to a mental cripple.  I'm a geologist but never worked in the oil industry per se.  I had many friends who obviously did so went out to see the well heads and learned a smattering, but I was involved in gems and metals for my primary endeavors.  It's fun learning from someone like RGR who clearly knows what he's talking about....unlike yourself.

Were you a smart parrot you would actually study what he has given you and try and better yourself.


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> Not at all. You didn't reference a single word Hirsch said. You made more assertions, which in your world must appear substantial, but in the real world are the equivalent of invisible Santa Claus. Reference a paragraph. A snippet. A claim by someone who knows something about the industry, which obviously isn't YOU. Do it properly, and maybe I'll consider for a nanosecond that you aren't some ignorant peaker sock puppet, unreeling the bible out for all to see in the hopes of scaring more noobs to your religion.



I'll refer you to the "gusher in california" thread for my response to your repetitive pablum. As for this specific arrogance above, hopefully these men pass your curious qualification for what constitutes "knowing something about the industry:"





RGR said:


> You challenged me to dissemble your favorite report. I did so. Then you vanished. Go back to that thread and try and concentrate...try and focus...and then try and refute what Hirsch said, and I referenced.



ROFLMAO. You didn't "dissemble" jack shit. You punted to the shale gas "explosion," which you refused to quantify. Could you be more pretentious?

It is amusing, however, watching you pretend my reluctance to visit this forum every day like you do is somehow "vanishing." There is nothing, again NOTHING, you have in your arsenal that I would ever have to duck. Your desperate methods of steering the discussion to your own bits of irrelevance are not refuting the overall condition of peak. Sorry, they just aren't. ... Where is the oil going forward? At current rate of demand growth, how can the world ramp up to 100-110 million bpd? From what?

Do better.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> I'll refer you to the "gusher in california" thread for my response to your repetitive pablum.



Big words! Except...you haven't responded. As best I can tell, you haven't even shown you understand the basis for how I discredited the Hirsch report. You haven't quoted any other report or reference to dispute what I said, or even quoted or referenced anyone else who explained why Hirsch really didn't mean what he wrote.

Why not?



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> As for this specific arrogance above, hopefully these men pass your curious qualification for what constitutes "knowing something about the industry:"



Take any statement they made that is your favorite, and link to their basis for making it. Show us, and the entire world that you aren't just a parrot spewing ASPO propaganda! Be free! Activate a couple extra neurons! Whaddaya say!



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> It is amusing, however, watching you pretend my reluctance to visit this forum every day like you do is somehow "vanishing."



Tuck tail and run is an even better description. Although if it takes you an entire week to come back with nothing but another demonstration of how you don't understand how I discredited the Hirsch report, well, you sure you wouldn't rather stick to the church congregation where no one will call you on the ridiculous nature of religious beliefs?


----------



## westwall

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. You didn't reference a single word Hirsch said. You made more assertions, which in your world must appear substantial, but in the real world are the equivalent of invisible Santa Claus. Reference a paragraph. A snippet. A claim by someone who knows something about the industry, which obviously isn't YOU. Do it properly, and maybe I'll consider for a nanosecond that you aren't some ignorant peaker sock puppet, unreeling the bible out for all to see in the hopes of scaring more noobs to your religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll refer you to the "gusher in california" thread for my response to your repetitive pablum. As for this specific arrogance above, hopefully these men pass your curious qualification for what constitutes "knowing something about the industry:"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> You challenged me to dissemble your favorite report. I did so. Then you vanished. Go back to that thread and try and concentrate...try and focus...and then try and refute what Hirsch said, and I referenced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO. You didn't "dissemble" jack shit. You punted to the shale gas "explosion," which you refused to quantify. Could you be more pretentious?
> 
> It is amusing, however, watching you pretend my reluctance to visit this forum every day like you do is somehow "vanishing." There is nothing, again NOTHING, you have in your arsenal that I would ever have to duck. Your desperate methods of steering the discussion to your own bits of irrelevance are not refuting the overall condition of peak. Sorry, they just aren't. ... Where is the oil going forward? At current rate of demand growth, how can the world ramp up to 100-110 million bpd? From what?
> 
> Do better.
Click to expand...





This has just as much credibility as the dreck you posted from ASPO.  After all they are a society right?


----------



## RGR

westwall said:


> This has just as much credibility as the dreck you posted from ASPO.  After all they are a society right?



Nope. Not even a Society.

The Association for the Study of Peak Oil. Started by a guy who declared peak oil...in 1989. After a decade of no peak oil...he decided to start an association to study it, him not doing so well by himself. They hold meetings (known as an echo chamber, won't invite actual experts on the topic) once a year, all 50 of them or so, slap themselves on the back for being clever, push this years peak oil prediction out another year or two, and start planning next years echo chamber.

I am not allowed to attend unfortunately, I think it would be a blast. Last time they held the meeting in Denver in 09, people dressed up in chicken costumes and held signs saying "The sky is falling!" outside the hotel room they were meeting in. Hysterical.


----------



## mdn2000

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2.5:1 (from heavy oils) will NOT maintain an economic paradigm utterly dependent upon 7% annual growth. What don't you understand about that assertion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm becoming amazed that you can spell the word "oil".
> 
> Assert all you'd like. Assert Santa Claus is invisible..it would be as relevant to the topic at hand as most anything else you've "asserted".
Click to expand...


Its called Cut and Paste.


----------

