# oil gusher in california



## mdn2000

Oil discovered it an old oil field, and its a gusher, a bitter pill for peak oil theorist. I know the argument the fools will give, this discovery will only last the USA for 20 days, yet Kern oil fields have been some of the most production in the USA since the last century, this oil field continues to surprise us with production and now a gusher.

I posted this in another thread but the significance is Peak Oil *shattering*



> That the gusher is situated in a hydrocarbon basin that has been picked over for 100 years validates the philosophy extolled by Oxy President Steven Chazen and Chief Executive Ray R. Irani: The best place to find new oil is in old oilfields.





> Within two years the field could be producing 100,000 barrels a day, putting it among the busiest five fields in the U.S. That would be enough to generate net income of $1 billion a year, a nice bump for a company that already boasts higher net margins than any other big oil company, with $3 billion earned on $18 billion in revenue last year. "This find is a real game changer," says Douglas Leggate, oil analyst with Bank of America ( BAC - news - people ), "and not just for Oxy." He thinks the reservoir is 20,000 feet underground and could stretch 50 miles to the north through acreage controlled by Chevron ( CVX - news - people ) (which has a minor stake in Oxy's find) and Aera Energy (a joint venture between ExxonMobil ( XOM - news - people ) and Royal Dutch Shell ( RDSA - news - people ))



Al Gores family once owned Oxy. Gore gave strategic oil reserves to Oxy during the Clinton administration.



> The secret to Oxy's success: no wildcatting. "We're in the oil recovery business, not in the oil discovery business," says Chazen, 63. Nearby the find is a 100-year-old field called Elk Hills, which Oxy bought from the federal government in 1998 for $3.6 billion. The deal was sponsored by then Vice President Gore as part of his "Reinventing Government" initiative--that is, getting bureaucrats out of the business of operating oilfields


http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0329/outfront-oxxy-irani-oil-exxon-energy-oil-oil-everywhere.html


----------



## JiggsCasey

You've learned nothing. Still no mention of proven reserve total... And of course, no link.

Fail.


----------



## andy753

Could someone please explain "Peak Oil" to me, and just the facts, please. And the short version please. I've gotta say, I don't know much about it.


----------



## Mr. H.

Proven Reserves:

_an estimated quantity of all hydrocarbons statistically defined as crude oil or natural gas, which geological and engineering data demonstrate with reasonable certainty to be recoverable in future years from known reservoirs under existing economic and operating conditions. Reservoirs are considered proven if economic producibility is supported by either actual production or conclusive formation testing. The area of an oil reservoir considered proven includes those portions delineated by drilling and defined by gas-oil or oil-water contacts, if any, and the immediately adjoining portions not yet drilled, but which can be reasonably judged as economically productive on the basis of available geological and engineering data. In the absence of information on fluid contacts, the lowest known structural occurrence of hydrocarbons controls the lower proven limit of the reservoir._

Proven reserves

It's a figure used mainly for balance sheets and IRS reporting, in cases where depletion allowances are calculated. 

I don't know why you're so fixated on the term, Jiggs.


----------



## JiggsCasey

andy753 said:


> Could someone please explain "Peak Oil" to me, and just the facts, please. And the short version please. I've gotta say, I don't know much about it.



Peak oil refers to the maximum global extraction and production rate of light crude oil, which we have reached (2005-2008). All oil extraction from any field follows a relative bell curve, with terminal decline following the apex. Peak production comes 40 years after peak discovery. It is axiomatic that the sum of those fields also follows the same bell curve, as global discoveries peaked 40-45 years ago, and new discoveries are not coming close to keeping up with existing dying capacity. No "alternative" is remotely ready to replace what light crude does for complex societies, and won't be for decades, if ever. The IEA has (finally) joined the Joint Chiefs, the U.S. Dept. of Energy, Oxford Univ., the German, British and Australian governments, Lloyds of London, ASPO, Total Oil, Dick Cheney, and countless petroleum geologists in admitting peak is here, and terminal decline will begin by 2015, and likely much sooner.

Oil will never "run dry," as the rising cost will effectively crush demand. The ramifications of that crushed demand, however, is major dislocation of the global food conveyor belt, and ever-increasing civil disruption (perpetual recession all the way to great depression... and, if things get too desperate - war).

Dick Cheney admitted the coming oil depletion crisis in London in 1999, and his actions in office supported that policy from the moment he was sworn in and created the very secretive NEPDG using tax-payer funding. So desperate was he to hide the details of Bush League energy policy, an unprecedented move, he fought it all the way to the Supreme Court, and won.

Peak oil explains almost everything happening in global conflict zones, and western geopolitics today - from 9/11 to the housing/lending bubble to Iraq to Deepwater Horizon to the desperate horizontal fracking and strip mining of the U.S. and Canada. If it wasn't happening, our leaders wouldn't be doing the incredibly dangerous and violent things they do.

But to admit this geological certainty openly in the mass media would lead to the collapse of global markets for a ponzi scheme which is utterly dependent on the illusion of confidence.


----------



## uscitizen

I will bet that MDN runs around saying no more poverty everytime he finds a quarter in the sofa.


----------



## JiggsCasey

Mr. H. said:


> Proven Reserves:
> 
> _an estimated quantity of all hydrocarbons statistically defined as crude oil or natural gas, which geological and engineering data demonstrate with reasonable certainty to be recoverable in future years from known reservoirs under existing economic and operating conditions. Reservoirs are considered proven if economic producibility is supported by either actual production or conclusive formation testing. The area of an oil reservoir considered proven includes those portions delineated by drilling and defined by gas-oil or oil-water contacts, if any, and the immediately adjoining portions not yet drilled, but which can be reasonably judged as economically productive on the basis of available geological and engineering data. In the absence of information on fluid contacts, the lowest known structural occurrence of hydrocarbons controls the lower proven limit of the reservoir._
> 
> Proven reserves
> 
> It's a figure used mainly for balance sheets and IRS reporting, in cases where depletion allowances are calculated.
> 
> I don't know why you're so fixated on the term, Jiggs.



Incorrect. It is "estimated" and 'technically recoverable" reserve total figures that are used for balance sheets and share-holder buoyancy. 

All that matters is what you can get to. You should be more fixated on the term, yourself, and not relying on guesswork and hope-based totals.

I can tell you I've found 5 trillion barrels of crude 500 miles below the north pole. That doesn't mean jack squat if no one can ever get to it.


----------



## Old Rocks

There is a very good explanation of peak oil here.

Peak oil primer and links | Energy Bulletin


----------



## RadiomanATL

FYI [.b] doesn't work on thread titles.


----------



## uscitizen

Buy your Peak Oil at Amazon.com


----------



## Oddball

> oil gusher in California



There's so much oil oozing out of the ground in the Santa Barbara area, that you could strike a gusher if you chunked your approach shot at the local golf course.

But even _*propose*_ drilling more wells there and the granola heads would collectively poop themselves.


----------



## Mr. H.

JiggsCasey said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proven Reserves:
> 
> _an estimated quantity of all hydrocarbons statistically defined as crude oil or natural gas, which geological and engineering data demonstrate with reasonable certainty to be recoverable in future years from known reservoirs under existing economic and operating conditions. Reservoirs are considered proven if economic producibility is supported by either actual production or conclusive formation testing. The area of an oil reservoir considered proven includes those portions delineated by drilling and defined by gas-oil or oil-water contacts, if any, and the immediately adjoining portions not yet drilled, but which can be reasonably judged as economically productive on the basis of available geological and engineering data. In the absence of information on fluid contacts, the lowest known structural occurrence of hydrocarbons controls the lower proven limit of the reservoir._
> 
> Proven reserves
> 
> It's a figure used mainly for balance sheets and IRS reporting, in cases where depletion allowances are calculated.
> 
> I don't know why you're so fixated on the term, Jiggs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect. It is "estimated" and 'technically recoverable" reserve total figures that are used for balance sheets and share-holder buoyancy.
> 
> All that matters is what you can get to. You should be more fixated on the term, yourself, and not relying on guesswork and hope-based totals.
> 
> I can tell you I've found 5 trillion barrels of crude 500 miles below the north pole. That doesn't mean jack squat if no one can ever get to it.
Click to expand...

From the IRS:

*PROVED RESERVES:*Quantities of reserves that, based on geologic and engineering data,appear with reasonable certainty to be recoverable in the future from known oil andgas reserves under existing economic and operating conditions.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-mssp/oilgas.pdf


----------



## JiggsCasey

Mr. H. said:


> From the IRS:
> 
> *PROVED RESERVES:*Quantities of reserves that, based on geologic and engineering data,appear with reasonable certainty to be recoverable in the future from known oil andgas reserves under existing economic and operating conditions.
> 
> http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-mssp/oilgas.pdf



You can trot out all the definitions you want that spin it the way you desperately need. I don't see your point, as "reasonable certainly" being the key phrase that makes your angle a semantics argument.

Now man-up and provide the definition of "technically recoverable" and/or "estimated" reserves.


----------



## JiggsCasey

Oddball said:


> oil gusher in California
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's so much oil oozing out of the ground in the Santa Barbara area, that you could strike a gusher if you chunked your approach shot at the local golf course.
> 
> But even _*propose*_ drilling more wells there and the granola heads would collectively poop themselves.
Click to expand...


Yes, you mentioned this irrelevancy before. What is the total there? What is the USGS's summation? It might "look like" a lot, but it's not when considering our 86 million barrel per day appetite.


----------



## Oddball

What were the projections about what the Alaska pipeline and Prudhoe Bay would be producing today, versus reality, by the enviroloon naysayers back in the '70s?

That aside, we know where the reserves are and it would take little more than a matter of a few months to put them into full production.

Then again, there are those dippy, granola munching Fornicalia enviroloons getting in the way, as per usual.


----------



## loosecannon

Oddball said:


> What were the projections about what the Alaska pipeline and Prudhoe Bay would be producing today, versus reality, by the enviroloon naysayers back in the '70s?
> 
> That aside, we know where the reserves are and it would take little more than a matter of a few months to put them into full production.
> 
> Then again, there are those dippy, granola munching Fornicalia enviroloons getting in the way, as per usual.



you are being intentionally obtuse right?


----------



## KissMy

I went to the gas station today & pumped 40 gallons into my truck. All the pumps around were pumping full blast. If there was a shortage no gas would come out of the hose. I look at the EIA website & it shows the largest oil glut on record. This Peak Oil sounds a lot like Global Warming. Colder & wetter seasons forced them to change to Climate Change.


----------



## Oddball

loosecannon said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> What were the projections about what the Alaska pipeline and Prudhoe Bay would be producing today, versus reality, by the enviroloon naysayers back in the '70s?
> 
> That aside, we know where the reserves are and it would take little more than a matter of a few months to put them into full production.
> 
> Then again, there are those dippy, granola munching Fornicalia enviroloons getting in the way, as per usual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are being intentionally obtuse right?
Click to expand...

The irony of you asking that question of anyone has me wiping beer spray off my monitor.


----------



## loosecannon

Oddball said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> What were the projections about what the Alaska pipeline and Prudhoe Bay would be producing today, versus reality, by the enviroloon naysayers back in the '70s?
> 
> That aside, we know where the reserves are and it would take little more than a matter of a few months to put them into full production.
> 
> Then again, there are those dippy, granola munching Fornicalia enviroloons getting in the way, as per usual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are being intentionally obtuse right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The irony of you asking that question of anyone has me wiping beer spray off my monitor.
Click to expand...


Yeah well I figured you were smarter than tarded but apparently not. 

Do they let you fly planes with engines? Passengers?


----------



## loosecannon

KissMy said:


> I went to the gas station today & pumped 40 gallons into my truck. All the pumps around were pumping full blast. If there was a shortage no gas would come out of the hose. I look at the EIA website & it shows the largest oil glut on record. This Peak Oil sounds a lot like Global Warming. Colder & wetter seasons forced them to change to Climate Change.



Yeah well half the people on earth survive on an income sufficient to buy one gallon of gas/day if they forego all other spending. 

Shortage is relative.


----------



## JiggsCasey

KissMy said:


> I went to the gas station today & pumped 40 gallons into my truck. All the pumps around were pumping full blast. If there was a shortage no gas would come out of the hose. I look at the EIA website & it shows the largest oil glut on record. This Peak Oil sounds a lot like Global Warming. Colder & wetter seasons forced them to change to Climate Change.



And, like climate change, gluttonous cons cite occasional April snow fall as their main piece of evidence against it.

It's not our fault you're too intellectually challenged to recognize the difference between short-term and long-term capacity. Tool.


----------



## JiggsCasey

Oddball said:


> That aside, we know where the reserves are and it would take little more than a matter of a few months to put them into full production.



This is beyond retarded. You suck at this topic. Pick another to be dead wrong about.


----------



## mdn2000

JiggsCasey said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I went to the gas station today & pumped 40 gallons into my truck. All the pumps around were pumping full blast. If there was a shortage no gas would come out of the hose. I look at the EIA website & it shows the largest oil glut on record. This Peak Oil sounds a lot like Global Warming. Colder & wetter seasons forced them to change to Climate Change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, like climate change, gluttonous cons cite occasional April snow fall as their main piece of evidence against it.
> 
> It's not our fault you're too intellectually challenged to recognize the difference between short-term and long-term capacity. Tool.
Click to expand...


Where is your evidence there is global warming.

The only thing I see is the natural cycle of the earth. No proof has been presented the earth is warming. Just flimsy theory based on CO2, CO2 which you can buy as dry ice. CO2 likes to be cold.


----------



## JiggsCasey

mdn2000 said:


> Where is your evidence there is global warming.
> 
> The only thing I see is the natural cycle of the earth. No proof has been presented the earth is warming. Just flimsy theory based on CO2, CO2 which you can buy as dry ice. CO2 likes to be cold.



While its painfully transparent that your position on peak oil has become untenable, you won't be derailing the topic here. This thread isn't about climate change, it's about the fraudulent assertion of some "oil glut." 

No one will be following you down that rabbit hole, just because you and your allies here are out of bullets regarding world reserves.


----------



## mdn2000

JiggsCasey said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is your evidence there is global warming.
> 
> The only thing I see is the natural cycle of the earth. No proof has been presented the earth is warming. Just flimsy theory based on CO2, CO2 which you can buy as dry ice. CO2 likes to be cold.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While its painfully transparent that your position on peak oil has become untenable, you won't be derailing the topic here. This thread isn't about climate change, it's about the fraudulent assertion of some "oil glut."
> 
> No one will be following you down that rabbit hole, just because you and your allies here are out of bullets regarding world reserves.
Click to expand...


Maybe you have not noticed but I started the thread, not as a debate on peak oil, but as proof we are discovering more oil.

I am surprised you are so pissed off someone provides proof, that new oil is being found, that the new oil was never a part of the theory of peak oil.

Show me one study, any research, that takes into account oil not discovered.

Oil is infinite, there is no proof that Oil is not infinite. Oil will be discovered and used by humans as long as humans live.

Until theory is proved as fact, its simply scientist or researchers making a living the only way they know how, by causing fear and panic so that we bow to them to save us.

Why is it only the Democrat-Scientists that spit out theory after theory and demand more money to spit out more theories. Why has the first theory not been proved?


----------



## westwall

JiggsCasey said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is your evidence there is global warming.
> 
> The only thing I see is the natural cycle of the earth. No proof has been presented the earth is warming. Just flimsy theory based on CO2, CO2 which you can buy as dry ice. CO2 likes to be cold.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While its painfully transparent that your position on peak oil has become untenable, you won't be derailing the topic here. This thread isn't about climate change, it's about the fraudulent assertion of some "oil glut."
> 
> No one will be following you down that rabbit hole, just because you and your allies here are out of bullets regarding world reserves.
Click to expand...





How do you figure?  I find it interesting that "peak oil" is based on light crude (which for those who don't know what it is is crude that has been naturally refined under ground over a few million years and is usable, as is, in a diesel engine you don't have to do a thing to it, the engine will run) which is by its nature uncommon in the world of petroleum reserves.  Another term that is used in classification of oil is "sweet or sour" and this tells you how much sulfer is in the crude, sweet=very little, sour=a lot.  

Here in the US the EPA does not allow sour oil to be refined so the oil from Prudhoe Bay goes to Japan.  Furthermore the "Peak Oil" concept is based on the oil companies wanting to drive up the cost of oil.  There were internal memo's released back in the '90's that exposed the oil companies collusion.

Also there is the simple fact that oil reserves are recharging themselves.  That poses some interesting problems with the peak oil myth.  The most famous of the recharging fields is Eugene island 330 which in the 1970's was producing 15,000 bbls per day, and then by the late 90's was down to around 4,000 bbls per day.  Then all of a sudden the production increased from 4k to 13k quite literally overnight.  Upon checking, the oil was found to be of a different geologic age and more interestingly the reserves jumped from 60 million barrels to 400 million barrels.

Peak oil is a unsubstantiated myth promulgated by the oil companies and the fools who support them.


----------



## mdn2000

In the last five years Brazil has gone from importing oil to being an exporter of oil. 

Brazil has not reached its peak.


----------



## Old Rocks

Hubbert peak theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reliability

US oil production (Lower 48 states crude oil only) and Hubbert high estimate for the US.Hubbert, in his 1956 paper,[3] presented two scenarios for US conventional oil production (crude oil + condensate):

most likely estimate: a logistic curve with a logistic growth rate equal to 6%, an ultimate resource equal to 150 Giga-barrels (Gb) and a peak in 1965. 
upper-bound estimate: a logistic curve with a logistic growth rate equal to 6% and ultimate resource equal to 200 Giga-barrels and a peak in 1970. 
Hubbert's upper-bound estimate, which he regarded as optimistic, accurately predicted that US oil production would peak in 1970. Forty years later, the upper-bound estimate has also proven to be very accurate in terms of cumulative production, less so in terms of annual production. For 2005, the upper-bound Hubbert model predicts 178.2 Gb cumulative and 1.17 Gb current production; actual US production was 176.4 Gb cumulative crude oil + condensate (1% lower than the upper bound estimate), with annual production of 1.55 Gb (32% higher than the upper bound estimate).

A post-hoc analysis of peaked oil wells, fields, regions and nations found that Hubbert's model was the "most widely useful"(providing the best fit to the data), though many areas studied had a sharper "peak" than predicted.[8]


----------



## Old Rocks

Hubbert's Peak, The Peak

Hubbert's Peak
in the 21st Century
World oil production will start to fall sometime during this decade, never to rise again. In 1956, M. King Hubbert predicted that U.S. oil production would peak in the early 1970's. Although Hubbert was widely criticized by some oil experts and economists, in 1971 Hubbert's prediction came true. The 100 year period when most of the world's oil is being discovered became known as "Hubbert's Peak". The peak stands in contrast to the hundreds of millions of years the oil deposits took to form. Hubbert's methods predict a peak in world oil production less than five years away.

Hubbert's methods predict a peak in world oil production less than five years away.

Ordinarily, we look to new technology for solutions to problems. Until recently, the oil industry enjoyed a higher rate of return on invested capital than any other industry. Historically, the most rewarding use of the profit was investing it into developing better ways of finding oil. As a result, the origin, trapping, exploration, and production of oil became advanced fields of knowledge. We cannot benefit today from reinventing those wheels.

There are long-term solutions to our future energy problems: conservation and both fossil and renewable energy sources. Unfortunately, large-scale implementation of these solutions requires more than five years and the industrialized nations have done little to address the short-term problem.


----------



## westwall

Old Rocks said:


> Hubbert's Peak, The Peak
> 
> Hubbert's Peak
> in the 21st Century
> World oil production will start to fall sometime during this decade, never to rise again. In 1956, M. King Hubbert predicted that U.S. oil production would peak in the early 1970's. Although Hubbert was widely criticized by some oil experts and economists, in 1971 Hubbert's prediction came true. The 100 year period when most of the world's oil is being discovered became known as "Hubbert's Peak". The peak stands in contrast to the hundreds of millions of years the oil deposits took to form. Hubbert's methods predict a peak in world oil production less than five years away.
> 
> Hubbert's methods predict a peak in world oil production less than five years away.
> 
> Ordinarily, we look to new technology for solutions to problems. Until recently, the oil industry enjoyed a higher rate of return on invested capital than any other industry. Historically, the most rewarding use of the profit was investing it into developing better ways of finding oil. As a result, the origin, trapping, exploration, and production of oil became advanced fields of knowledge. We cannot benefit today from reinventing those wheels.
> 
> There are long-term solutions to our future energy problems: conservation and both fossil and renewable energy sources. Unfortunately, large-scale implementation of these solutions requires more than five years and the industrialized nations have done little to address the short-term problem.







You forgot to mention, and I also noticed you cut out the fact, that the prediction was made back in the 1970's.

In other words....FAIL


----------



## Mr. H.

U.S. oil production is a vastly different subject to world oil production. U.S. policy is to "stop, drop, and roll" over.


----------



## JiggsCasey

westwall said:


> You forgot to mention, and I also noticed you cut out the fact, that the prediction was made back in the 1970's.
> 
> In other words....FAIL?



Your lack of reading skills aside, it says in the first sentence he made the prediction in 1956 about U.S. production peaking in 1970, and he was one year off. What are you talking about?

It also says world production would peak in the first decade of the 21st century. ALL evidence indicates that we are currently at peak, and have plateaued since 2004.

Again, HOW is that fail? Try and respond this time without alluding to irrelevant anomalies like 1 in 1000 kiddie pools "refilling" in our Gulf.


----------



## mdn2000

Thus far we have explored only 20% of the planet for oil, new and improved technology is allowing us to explore new areas for oil.

I speculate that the largest oil reserves in the world have yet to be discovered.


----------



## westwall

JiggsCasey said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot to mention, and I also noticed you cut out the fact, that the prediction was made back in the 1970's.
> 
> In other words....FAIL?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your lack of reading skills aside, it says in the first sentence he made the prediction in 1956 about U.S. production peaking in 1970, and he was one year off. What are you talking about?
> 
> It also says world production would peak in the first decade of the 21st century. ALL evidence indicates that we are currently at peak, and have plateaued since 2004.
> 
> Again, HOW is that fail? Try and respond this time without alluding to irrelevant anomalies like 1 in 1000 kiddie pools "refilling" in our Gulf.
Click to expand...





Oil production in the US has dropped to the lows we see today due to legislative fiat.  How exactly is it peak oil when there is plenty of oil in the ground, it's just the oil companies are not allowed to go get it?

And once again, why is peak oil predicated on light crude which is uncommon in the world as a whole?  There is a 30 to one ratio of heavy to light crude in the world so why resort to yet another fictitous methodology?  Hmm?

And I suggest you refrain from comparative reading comprehension levels.  You've allready exhibited a fundamental lack of education in that particular area.


----------



## JiggsCasey

mdn2000 said:


> Thus far we have explored only 20% of the planet for oil, new and improved technology is allowing us to explore new areas for oil.



Where is your link corroborating that assertion that we've only explored 20%? Landmass? Does that include the deep ocean? What is considered 100%? And how far down?



mdn2000 said:


> I speculate that the largest oil reserves in the world have yet to be discovered.



Your entire argument is speculation. 



westwall said:


> Oil production in the US has dropped to the lows we see today due to legislative fiat.  How exactly is it peak oil when there is plenty of oil in the ground, it's just the oil companies are not allowed to go get it?



LOL. 

You: There's plenty of oil here.
Me: OK, where? Support your claim.
You: I don't have to link, it's in the ground. duh!

Generally, when trading opinions on the intrawebz, it's standard procedure to back up your work with corroboration. For the dozenth time, please show where you're getting your assertion that there is "plenty" here in the U.S. Let's settle on a ballpark figure for proven reserve totals here. Doesn't have to be specific. Can you handle that? Where is the light crude (which our empire is entirely built upon)?....  If you're referring instead to far more expensive heavier, dirtier shale and tar sands, say that, and then we can cover that particular fail.



westwall said:


> And once again, why is peak oil predicated on light crude which is uncommon in the world as a whole?  There is a 30 to one ratio of heavy to light crude in the world so why resort to yet another fictitous methodology?  Hmm?



Gosh, I dunno "scientist." Because light crude has returned a 200:1 down to 20:1 ratio for return on energy investment over the years, and light crude is why we are where we are today - empire? Meanwhile heavy oil is around 3:1 down to 1.5:1, and will NOT sustain 7% growth by even the lamest extrapolation? This has been covered countless times throughout this forum, but clearly you're just the latest slow pony.



westwall said:


> And I suggest you refrain from comparative reading comprehension levels.  You've allready exhibited a fundamental lack of education in that particular area.



Ah, no. That would be you. But not just in reading comprehension, you obviously don't even know your own alleged industry. You "do science," but you're just a bit fuzzy on the profound differences between light crude and kerogen/bitumen.

Wow, are you over your head on this topic.


----------



## westwall

JiggsCasey said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thus far we have explored only 20% of the planet for oil, new and improved technology is allowing us to explore new areas for oil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is your link corroborating that assertion that we've only explored 20%? Landmass? Does that include the deep ocean? What is considered 100%? And how far down?
> 
> 
> 
> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I speculate that the largest oil reserves in the world have yet to be discovered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your entire argument is speculation.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.
> 
> You: There's plenty of oil here.
> Me: OK, where? Support your claim.
> You: I don't have to link, it's in the ground. duh!
> 
> Generally, when trading opinions on the intrawebz, it's standard procedure to back up your work with corroboration. For the dozenth time, please show where you're getting your assertion that there is "plenty" here in the U.S. Let's settle on a ballpark figure for proven reserve totals here. Doesn't have to be specific. Can you handle that? Where is the light crude (which our empire is entirely built upon)?....  If you're referring instead to far more expensive heavier, dirtier shale and tar sands, say that, and then we can cover that particular fail.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And once again, why is peak oil predicated on light crude which is uncommon in the world as a whole?  There is a 30 to one ratio of heavy to light crude in the world so why resort to yet another fictitous methodology?  Hmm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gosh, I dunno "scientist." Because light crude has returned a 200:1 down to 20:1 ratio for return on energy investment over the years, and light crude is why we are where we are today - empire? Meanwhile heavy oil is around 3:1 down to 1.5:1, and will NOT sustain 7% growth by even the lamest extrapolation? This has been covered countless times throughout this forum, but clearly you're just the latest slow pony.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I suggest you refrain from comparative reading comprehension levels.  You've allready exhibited a fundamental lack of education in that particular area.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, no. That would be you. But not just in reading comprehension, you obviously don't even know your own alleged industry. You "do science," but you're just a bit fuzzy on the profound differences between light crude and kerogen/bitumen.
> 
> Wow, are you over your head on this topic.
Click to expand...





Really?  According to the US Department of Energy the US has approximately 1.2 TRILLION barrels of oil waiting to be pumped out.


DOE - Fossil Energy: DOE's Oil Recovery R&D Program

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/news/techlines/2006/06015-Oil_Recovery_Assessments_Released.html

And heavy crude is not kerogen or bitumen either, those are closer to tar, but go ahead and tell yourself how brilliant you are, you're an audience of one.

You can leave now bucko, you're far to ignorant to partake in a reasonable discussion.


----------



## Ropey

mdn2000 said:


> I posted this in another thread but the significance is Peak Oil *shattering*



I believe that Peak Oil is an exaggerated symptom that is used to raise current prices. Saudi Arabia and OPEC has the ability to produce more oil than they do currently, and most peak oil predictions are based without using many of the updates to estimated oil reserves. 

Technological advances have allowed us to extract more oil and will allow us to extract more oil than we have previously. Peak oil might be coming, but I personally do not believe that we are not close to having reached it. 
*
Some do not believe it at all:*



> An entirely alternative theory of oil formation has existed since the early 1950&#8217;s in Russia, almost unknown to the West. It claims conventional American biological origins theory is an unscientific absurdity that is un-provable. They point to the fact that western geologists have repeatedly predicted finite oil over the past century, only to then find more, lots more.
> 
> Not only has this alternative explanation of the origins of oil and gas existed in theory. The emergence of Russia and prior of the USSR as the world&#8217;s largest oil producer and natural gas producer has been based on the application of the theory in practice. This has geopolitical consequences of staggering magnitude.


----------



## Old Rocks

Ropey, what you believe is irrelevant. What can you prove? King Hubbert made a rock solid prediction in 1956 concerning the peak oil of the US. And missed by only a year. If there were big untapped fields in the US, nothing would stop the oil companies from tapping those fields. 

Frauds like Walleyes can lie all he cares to concerning the Hubbert Curve. It has been right on thus far.


----------



## Ropey

Old Rocks said:


> Ropey, what you believe is irrelevant. What can you prove? King Hubbert made a rock solid prediction in 1956 concerning the peak oil of the US. And missed by only a year. If there were big untapped fields in the US, nothing would stop the oil companies from tapping those fields.
> 
> Frauds like Walleyes can lie all he cares to concerning the Hubbert Curve. It has been right on thus far.



Irrelevant to you possibly.  As I said, there are other views and I posted a different view that is clearly arguable.

I don't need to prove it. Time will prove itself out. That's why I gave my opinion. You are attempting to find concrete proof in something that is far too theoretical and arguable.


----------



## Old Rocks

In other words, you would rather repeat talking points than research the subject. Just another willfully ignorant idjit.


----------



## Old Rocks

westwall said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thus far we have explored only 20% of the planet for oil, new and improved technology is allowing us to explore new areas for oil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is your link corroborating that assertion that we've only explored 20%? Landmass? Does that include the deep ocean? What is considered 100%? And how far down?
> 
> 
> 
> Your entire argument is speculation.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.
> 
> You: There's plenty of oil here.
> Me: OK, where? Support your claim.
> You: I don't have to link, it's in the ground. duh!
> 
> Generally, when trading opinions on the intrawebz, it's standard procedure to back up your work with corroboration. For the dozenth time, please show where you're getting your assertion that there is "plenty" here in the U.S. Let's settle on a ballpark figure for proven reserve totals here. Doesn't have to be specific. Can you handle that? Where is the light crude (which our empire is entirely built upon)?....  If you're referring instead to far more expensive heavier, dirtier shale and tar sands, say that, and then we can cover that particular fail.
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh, I dunno "scientist." Because light crude has returned a 200:1 down to 20:1 ratio for return on energy investment over the years, and light crude is why we are where we are today - empire? Meanwhile heavy oil is around 3:1 down to 1.5:1, and will NOT sustain 7% growth by even the lamest extrapolation? This has been covered countless times throughout this forum, but clearly you're just the latest slow pony.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I suggest you refrain from comparative reading comprehension levels.  You've allready exhibited a fundamental lack of education in that particular area.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, no. That would be you. But not just in reading comprehension, you obviously don't even know your own alleged industry. You "do science," but you're just a bit fuzzy on the profound differences between light crude and kerogen/bitumen.
> 
> Wow, are you over your head on this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  According to the US Department of Energy the US has approximately 1.2 TRILLION barrels of oil waiting to be pumped out.
> 
> 
> DOE - Fossil Energy: DOE's Oil Recovery R&D Program
> 
> DOE - Fossil Energy Techline: New CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery Technology Could Greatly Boost U.S. Oil Supplies
> 
> And heavy crude is not kerogen or bitumen either, those are closer to tar, but go ahead and tell yourself how brilliant you are, you're an audience of one.
> 
> You can leave now bucko, you're far to ignorant to partake in a reasonable discussion.
Click to expand...

*Egad Walleyes, do you actually believe that no one will read the links you post? 430 Billion barrels technically recoverable. Technically recoverable as in at a far greater cost.*

DOE - Fossil Energy: DOE's Oil Recovery R&D Program

Large volumes of technically recoverable domestic oil resources remain undeveloped and are yet to be discovered in the United States, and this potential associated with CO2-EOR represents just a portion, albeit large, of this potential. Undeveloped domestic oil resources still in the ground (in-place) total 1,124 billion barrels.  Of this large in-place resource, 430 billon barrels is estimated to be technically recoverable.  This resource includes undiscovered oil, "stranded" light 
oil amenable to CO2 enhanced oil recovery (EOR) technologies, unconventional oil (deep heavy oil and tar sands) and new petroleum concepts (residual oil in reservoir transition zones).


----------



## mdn2000

Old Rocks said:


> Ropey, what you believe is irrelevant. What can you prove? King Hubbert made a rock solid prediction in 1956 concerning the peak oil of the US. And missed by only a year. If there were big untapped fields in the US, nothing would stop the oil companies from tapping those fields.
> 
> Frauds like Walleyes can lie all he cares to concerning the Hubbert Curve. It has been right on thus far.



Old Crock, I gave you a "Peak Geothermal" thread, seriously I did that specifically for you, you keep bringing up Geothermal so lets have it out over in "peak geothermal". You linked to the Geysers as a great example of what we can do with Geothermal, I being the Electrical Power Research Institute Analyst have spent a few months solid working at Calenergy geothermal plants on the Salton Sea, thus I am compared to you a Geothermal god. 

So run your mouth and post your links in "peak geothermal"

Old Crock where are you, The Geysers is a rare, unique, one of a kind custom built Geothemal plant that cannot be copied anywhere else in the world, its actually the best of all geothermal plants, not by a little, but by a lot, thats why the Green nuts site this plant. Only thing is you can never duplicate this plant.


----------



## Old Rocks

And so I am to believe a dumbass poster on an internet message board over the scientists at MIT.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/geothermal-0126.html

Everywhere on Earth, a few miles below the surface, the bedrock is hot, and the deeper you go the hotter it gets. In some places, water heated by this hot rock comes naturally to the surface or close to it, where it can be easily tapped to drive a turbine and generate electricity. 

But where naturally heated water is not available at or near the surface, this process can be recreated by drilling one very deep well to inject water into the ground, and another well nearby to pump that water back to the surface after it has been heated by passing through cracks in the hot rock. Such systems are known as Engineered Geothermal Systems, or EGS.

A 2006 report by an 18-member team led by MIT Professor Jefferson Tester (now emeritus, and working at Cornell University) found that more than 2,000 times the total annual energy use of the United States could be supplied, using existing technology, from EGS systems, and perhaps 10 times as much with improved technology.


----------



## Ropey

Believe whatever you want. I'm not trying to convince you. You are demanding I convince you. I find that humorous. 

Peak Geothermal is a theory and has its facts to shore it up. The link I posted is quite another theory and as such has its own facts to shore it up. 

There are others. Yet you seem stuck to concrete thinking that this theory is without equal. As a theory with supported facts, it's simply arguable. 

Not provable.

There is no world general scientific consensus. Stick to your linear point of view if you will, but demanding more fluid thinkers to skew to your line of reference is rather weak logic.

Continue on though. I doubt if I will remain since I said all that I needed to on the subject already and I have already heard your view before. Since it is the Western school of thought, it was the first one I studied. 

Have a good night.


----------



## Old Rocks

The Gold Hypothesis may account for some oil, but hardly the most of it. And the there have been no fields of oil found at the bottom of granitic bodies.


----------



## JiggsCasey

Ropey said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I posted this in another thread but the significance is Peak Oil *shattering*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that Peak Oil is an exaggerated symptom that is used to raise current prices. *Saudi Arabia and OPEC has the ability to produce more oil than they do currently,* and most peak oil predictions are based without using many of the updates to estimated oil reserves.
> 
> Technological advances have allowed us to extract more oil and will allow us to extract more oil than we have previously. Peak oil might be coming, but I personally do not believe that we are not close to having reached it.
Click to expand...


Ah, finally a grown-up who might wanna actually discuss the data. Very good.

That's quite a statement there. .... I'll ask you specifically then: What makes you believe Saudi can produce more oil than they do currently? Because the Saudis say so? No one is allowed to independently verify their reserves. ...  But, ok. More in what way? Longterm? Can Saudi go way up to, say, 30 million per day? And maintain that rate for say, 5 years? More? ... Or are you talking about a short burst in output to make up for a shock elsewhere in the fungible game? .... How about the same for, apparently, OPEC overall? From where did you arrive at that assertion? How many billions of barrels do you honestly believe Saudi even has left? Let's start there.

Odd that someone would think that way, considering Saudi is currently injecting sea water into many of their existing fields (usually a death knell sign) in a rather transparently desperate attempt to push up what is left. Then there's their aggressive investment in expanding their offshore infrastructure. Why would they need to move in that far-more expensive direction if they had so much spare capacity already?

Either way... As Saudi goes, so goes world oil production.



> *
> Some do not believe it at all:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An entirely alternative theory of oil formation has existed since the early 1950&#8217;s in Russia, almost unknown to the West. It claims conventional American biological origins theory is an unscientific absurdity that is un-provable. They point to the fact that western geologists have repeatedly predicted finite oil over the past century, only to then find more, lots more.
> 
> Not only has this alternative explanation of the origins of oil and gas existed in theory. The emergence of Russia and prior of the USSR as the world&#8217;s largest oil producer and natural gas producer has been based on the application of the theory in practice. This has geopolitical consequences of staggering magnitude.
Click to expand...


The Russian Cold War-era topic regarding an isolated circle of 1950s hard-liner scientists desperate to counter U.S. hegemony on global oil contracts has been broached many times here and everywhere. Thomas Gold's book as well. ... Ultimately, abiotic theory doesn't hold up, ...  but it can be extrapolated nicely, in that it _IS_ true that traces of methane can be produced under extreme pressure deep under ground.

Either way, it's also irrelevant. Maybe oil IS abiotic, and does magically seap up from the core of the Earth. Great!! ... So then where is it? 

Why do so many international entities all produce data that essentially all agrees that new discoveries are simply NOT keeping up with existing dying capacity? Haven't for many years.


----------



## mdn2000

Jiggs, where is the link to your Peak Oil theory.


----------



## JiggsCasey

mdn2000 said:


> Jiggs, where is the link to your Peak Oil theory.



All over this forum, and all over the internet.

What part are you fuzzy about, at this point? I mean, besides all of it?


----------



## mdn2000

JiggsCasey said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jiggs, where is the link to your Peak Oil theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All over this forum, and all over the internet.
> 
> What part are you fuzzy about, at this point? I mean, besides all of it?
Click to expand...


Jiggs linked to three threads and the link was not there. I challenged Jiggs to give me the link to the theory Jiggs kept referring to and as you can see, Jiggs has no link.


----------



## JiggsCasey

mdn2000 said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jiggs, where is the link to your Peak Oil theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All over this forum, and all over the internet.
> 
> What part are you fuzzy about, at this point? I mean, besides all of it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jiggs linked to three threads and the link was not there. I challenged Jiggs to give me the link to the theory Jiggs kept referring to and as you can see, Jiggs has no link.
Click to expand...


Again, dipshit... Go to "The Google" and type "peak oil"... You should get thousands of options.


----------



## Old Rocks

mdn has been given King Hubberts work many times. It has even been pointed out to him that it was published in that radical left wing pinko publication, the Houston Journal of Oil and Gas.


----------



## mdn2000

JiggsCasey said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> All over this forum, and all over the internet.
> 
> What part are you fuzzy about, at this point? I mean, besides all of it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jiggs linked to three threads and the link was not there. I challenged Jiggs to give me the link to the theory Jiggs kept referring to and as you can see, Jiggs has no link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, dipshit... Go to "The Google" and type "peak oil"... You should get thousands of options.
Click to expand...


I want the option you claim, I want the option you refuse to provide, I dont want thousands, I want to see your option, your theory, you run your mouth and run from the challenge, you know so much, post the theory you refer to, I followed your past links and they were pure bullshit. 

If all you do is go to google and type peak oil, then you are the dipshit, you are a moron, and there is no debate, its about who pays the most for your "key phrase", "peak oil". 

Thats how google works, you can bid on phrases so that your ideology dominates the search. 

Challenged again and again, its plain to see you cannot support your ideas nor posts.


----------



## RGR

andy753 said:


> Could someone please explain "Peak Oil" to me, and just the facts, please. And the short version please. I've gotta say, I don't know much about it.



Peak oil is a religion. Like all religions it has its symbols (the bell shaped curve), its Bible from whence all knowledge is derived from a Prophet (Hubberts 1956 work titled "Nuclear Energy and the Fossil Fuels"), and like all religions it requires belief above all else.

The dogma are substantial, they are usually contradicted by reality, but they must be internalized, they must be defended, and they cannot be contradicted. Those who contradict the dogma soon find themselves banned, censored, called names, etc etc.

The technical definition of peak oil is that the production rate of oil will one day reach a maximum from which it shall retreat, never to return. No one disputes that in a finite system, the production of any finite thing within it cannot increase forever (maybe some of the abiotic crowd would give you an argument with this one). 

The consequences tend to be where the rub is. Peak oilers want the world to die, yuppies in particular, Humvee owners if possible, and if you don't plan on becoming Amish...well....you don't believe enough yet. Peakers consider themselves smarter, more analytical, in tune with the geosciences because of this "special" knowledge they have. Growing tomatos in their kitchen windows they dream of the day when the fuel stops, the mutant zombie bikers prowl the devastated suburban neighborhoods, and their ability to grow those tomatos and use their AR15's will save them.

Basically, they have just dressed up their own Rapture scenario. A perfect fit with the religious zealotry which drives them to learn to grow a tomato in a window box. Some have Communion, Peakers have that tomato. It means they will be saved, when oil peaks.

Of course, they react violently when you point these religious aspects out to them. To them it can't be a religion because they base it on the science as laid down by the Prophet Hubbert. He actually was a scientist, and a darn good one.  They use scientific sounding acronyms like EROEI, they pretend to discuss the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (with the level of understanding of pre-schoolers), they convert Hubberts original hand drawn bell shaped curve into something of mathematical precision...and then genuflect at its symmetry.

Thats the basics.


----------



## Old Rocks

OK, dumb ass. Here it is again.

Peak oil primer and links | Energy Bulletin

Of the 65 largest oil producing countries in the world, up to 54 have passed their peak of production and are now in decline, including the USA in 1970, Indonesia in 1997, Australia in 2000, the UK in 1999, Norway in 2001, and Mexico in 2004. Hubbert's methods, as well as other methodologies, have been used to make various projections about the global oil peak, with results ranging from 'already peaked', to the more optimistic 2035. Many of the official sources of data used to model oil peak such as OPEC figures, oil company reports, and the USGS discovery projections, upon which the international energy agencies base their own reports, can be shown to be frighteningly unreliable. In November 2009, the International Energy Agency's World Economic Outlook report stated that oil and gas liquids were not expected to peak until 2030, at significantly higher levels than today, however this was met by rebukes from internal whistleblowers who argued that the figures are more political than scientific. In response to the questionable reliability of IEA reports, several notable scientists have attempted independent studies, most famously, Colin Campbell and associates with the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO).


----------



## Revere

Superpowers like China and Russia are contracting with countries all over the world for more oil exploration.


----------



## Samson

JiggsCasey said:


> andy753 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could someone please explain "Peak Oil" to me, and just the facts, please. And the short version please. I've gotta say, I don't know much about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ramifications of that crushed demand, however, is major dislocation of the global food conveyor belt, and ever-increasing civil disruption (perpetual recession all the way to great depression... and, if things get too desperate - war).
> 
> ....
> Peak oil explains almost everything happening in global conflict zones, and western geopolitics today - from 9/11 ......
Click to expand...


As you see, it is a "End of The World" Theory, and a weak theory at that. Generally it is bantered about in Sophomore Sociology classes to prevent students from hibernating, and most realise that it is as realistic a possiblility of Alien Abduction.

However, like any wacko theory, there's going to be a few who worship it.


----------



## Old Rocks

Like any dumb ass Conservative, you will dismiss anything that does not fit your idea of the "Way things oughta be", without the slightest investigation. As stated before, Hubbert developed the model for peak oil in 1948 and published it in the Houston Journal of Oil and Gas in 1956. He predicted the peak for the US in 1970. It occured in 1971.


----------



## Old Rocks

Revere said:


> Superpowers like China and Russia are contracting with countries all over the world for more oil exploration.



*They surely have. And this is the result.*

Peak oil primer and links | Energy Bulletin

So when will oil peak globally?
Later in life M. King Hubbert predicted a global oil peak between 1995 and 2000. He may have been close to the mark, except that the geopolitically induced oil shocks of the 1970s slowed the growth of our use of oil. 

As represented in the following figure, global oil discovery peaked in the late 1960s. Since the mid-1980s, oil companies have been finding less oil than we have been consuming.


----------



## westwall

Old Rocks said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> 
> Superpowers like China and Russia are contracting with countries all over the world for more oil exploration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *They surely have. And this is the result.*
> 
> Peak oil primer and links | Energy Bulletin
> 
> So when will oil peak globally?
> Later in life M. King Hubbert predicted a global oil peak between 1995 and 2000. He may have been close to the mark, except that the geopolitically induced oil shocks of the 1970s slowed the growth of our use of oil.
> 
> As represented in the following figure, global oil discovery peaked in the late 1960s. Since the mid-1980s, oil companies have been finding less oil than we have been consuming.
Click to expand...





So how many months are left before there is no oil?


----------



## Revere

Old Rocks said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> 
> Superpowers like China and Russia are contracting with countries all over the world for more oil exploration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *They surely have. And this is the result.*
> 
> Peak oil primer and links | Energy Bulletin
> 
> So when will oil peak globally?
> Later in life M. King Hubbert predicted a global oil peak between 1995 and 2000. He may have been close to the mark, except that the geopolitically induced oil shocks of the 1970s slowed the growth of our use of oil.
> 
> As represented in the following figure, global oil discovery peaked in the late 1960s. Since the mid-1980s, oil companies have been finding less oil than we have been consuming.
Click to expand...


Countries who don't want to be relegated to the third world drill for oil.


----------



## Mr. H.

Looking for and, ideally, finding oil is a quest unto itself. Belive me, the two aren't mutually inclusive.

It's a fine balance between science and economics. Do you think that the people who embark on this quest give a flying fuck about peak oil? 

Geoligists, geoscientists, geophysicists, financiers, money managers, project managers, contractors, drilling superintendants, drilling formen, and rig hands are one and all focused upon making a commodity squirt out of the ground and into the tanks. 

A commodity. A money making, bill paying, get the groceries on the table clothes on my kids back pay the mortgage commodity. 

Philsophise all you want to about peak shit. The men, women, and children of the world's petroleum industry will keep on keepin' on until there is no money to be made. When the market bounces high they do their thing. When it crashes (remember $10 oil just a decade ago?), they'll lose their shirts.

You all too easily discount the contributions of every single little mom and pop operator especially those in the U.S. of A. It adds up- get that? It may be a drop in the big bucket but it may mean a college education to Mr. and Mrs. Smith's kid in bo-hunk nowheresville. 

There is no peak to the determination and fight down here in the trenches. There's only a desire to make a better life amid the never-ending acrimonious public and political idiocy that permiates a blind mindset. 

For over 150 years you've been given a magic elixer that's benefited mankind to no end. Yet you derisively and continually scorn the hand that feeds you. Goddamn bunch of fucking idiots.


----------



## mdn2000

U.S. geologist M. King Hubbert, flawed analysis based on a basic mis-understanding of geology.

When U.S. geologist M. King Hubbert introduced his Peak Oil Theory he did not understand the geology of the earth. How much more evidense do we need that the theory is bad, anything based on a flawed understanding of geology will result in a theory with deep, irreconciable flaws.


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> The technical definition of peak oil is that the production rate of oil will one day reach a maximum from which it shall retreat, never to return. No one disputes that in a finite system, *the production of any finite thing within it cannot increase forever* (maybe some of the abiotic crowd would give you an argument with this one).



And there it is. ...   But, just to be clear, several on your side of the "everything is fine" fence do indeed dispute that. Several.



RGR said:


> The consequences tend to be where the rub is. Peak oilers want the world to die, yuppies in particular, Humvee owners if possible, and if you don't plan on becoming Amish...well....you don't believe enough yet.



This is laughably pretentious and grossly inaccurate. It is akin to pretending "if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists." Speaking of dogma. 

No one wants the world to die, drama. All we want is for the undeniable fact to be finally acknowledged by heads of state, transparent reserve figures put forth once and for all, and for open dialogue to be established between nations. People like you keep that condition from ever being realized, just like with how you've all effectively muddied waters on climate change.



RGR said:


> Peakers consider themselves smarter, more analytical, in tune with the geosciences because of this "special" knowledge they have.



Dead wrong. Just more honest with ourselves based on the data, and not mired in denial.



RGR said:


> Growing tomatos in their kitchen windows they dream of the day when the fuel stops, the mutant zombie bikers prowl the devastated suburban neighborhoods, and their ability to grow those tomatos and use their AR15's will save them.



More nonsense, in a desperate ploy to demonize people with a belief system that you ultimate agree is accurate. You're lying, because that's what you guys do when faced with an uncertain near future and the potential end of your free market gluttony.



RGR said:


> Basically, they have just dressed up their own Rapture scenario.



Our own, to counter that of your RW camp? I don't see it that way, but at least ours is based on hard geological and economic data, rather than vague allegory in a funny book.



RGR said:


> Of course, they react violently when you point these religious aspects out to them.



Not hardly. But you've just described Christian Fascists to a T.



RGR said:


> To them it can't be a religion because they base it on the science as laid down by the Prophet Hubbert. He actually was a scientist, and a darn good one.



And the countless scientists who have followed who have all corroborated that his main thesis was dead-on correct, as you've conceded.



RGR said:


> They use scientific sounding acronyms like EROEI,



Actually, the International Energy Agency and the U.S. Dept. of Energy uses them at the very crux of the net energy question, and we merely provide what they present. Good try, however.



RGR said:


> they pretend to discuss the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (with the level of understanding of pre-schoolers),



The law of entropy? That energy only converts in one direction, from usable to unusable?LOL. Gosh, I'm sorry. What about it are we somehow getting wrong, or not fully understanding? School us.

Regardless, if we provide a full-on physics lesson, do you think your followers here will even read it? Heck, they don't even read the JOE or the IEA's latest report summing up our entire argument, so clearly something like thermodynamics has to be bullet-pointed for them in order to keep the discussion fluid.

But if you'd like,  we can get into it with greater depth, and you can point out how we somehow "miss it" as it relates to our undeniable global energy crisis.



RGR said:


> they convert Hubberts original hand drawn bell shaped curve into something of mathematical precision...and then genuflect at its symmetry.



Actually, scientists since have improved upon the model, and still come to the same basic conclusion, which you've conceded. We merely transfer the message.



RGR said:


> Thats the basics.



Wrong. That's the pretentious pap you're trying to pass off in order to conjure up a straw man scenario and petty connotation that is not remotely accurate to the reality. 

I could whip up the same smarmy narrative regarding the simplistic denialist camp of an ideology clinging desperately to market solutions, hope, and "the way it's always been," but considering you've essentially admitted we're right - and only disputed the ramifications - I don't really see a point.


----------



## JiggsCasey

Mr. H. said:


> Looking for and, ideally, finding oil is a quest unto itself. Belive me, the two aren't mutually inclusive.
> 
> It's a fine balance between science and economics. Do you think that the people who embark on this quest give a flying fuck about peak oil?



The men in this video who embark on that quest sure "give a flying fuck":

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd7QGbNKxoQ[/ame]



Mr. H. said:


> Geoligists, geoscientists, geophysicists, financiers, money managers, project managers, contractors, drilling superintendants, drilling formen, and rig hands are one and all focused upon making a commodity squirt out of the ground and into the tanks.



No one disputes this. Who are you arguing with?



Mr. H. said:


> A commodity. A money making, bill paying, get the groceries on the table clothes on my kids back pay the mortgage commodity.



But the problem is denialists believe nuclear and tar sands can maintain all those modern conveniences out of one side of their mouth, and then insist there's plenty of crude out the other.



Mr. H. said:


> Philsophise all you want to about peak shit. The men, women, and children of the world's petroleum industry will keep on keepin' on until there is no money to be made. When the market bounces high they do their thing. When it crashes (remember $10 oil just a decade ago?), they'll lose their shirts.



Not sure what your point is here. That oil industry workers are not recognized enough? I can assure you, those who recognize peak are far more aware of the work petrol insiders do and how important it is than those who deny global depletion is even happening, or those that insist the markets will cure all, regardless of how much is left.



Mr. H. said:


> You all too easily discount the contributions of every single little mom and pop operator especially those in the U.S. of A. It adds up- get that? It may be a drop in the big bucket but it may mean a college education to Mr. and Mrs. Smith's kid in bo-hunk nowheresville.





Mr. H. said:


> There is no peak to the determination and fight down here in the trenches. There's only a desire to make a better life amid the never-ending acrimonious public and political idiocy that permiates a blind mindset.



Again, not sure what the point is here, germane to the discussion, besides to shine a light on how important the industry is to their own personal well-being. That's kinda obvious.



Mr. H. said:


> For over 150 years you've been given a magic elixer that's benefited mankind to no end.



I've been saying that since contributing here. This is a point that denialists need to get their head around, not us. We're fully aware.



Mr. H. said:


> Yet you derisively and continually scorn the hand that feeds you.



Who? How? The argument here, at least from our standpoint, is "where is it?", not "stop doing it!"



Mr. H. said:


> Goddamn bunch of fucking idiots.



Nice... But, who?


----------



## westwall

JiggsCasey said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looking for and, ideally, finding oil is a quest unto itself. Belive me, the two aren't mutually inclusive.
> 
> It's a fine balance between science and economics. Do you think that the people who embark on this quest give a flying fuck about peak oil?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The men in this video who embark on that quest sure "give a flying fuck":
> 
> [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd7QGbNKxoQ[/ame]
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geoligists, geoscientists, geophysicists, financiers, money managers, project managers, contractors, drilling superintendants, drilling formen, and rig hands are one and all focused upon making a commodity squirt out of the ground and into the tanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one disputes this. Who are you arguing with?
> 
> 
> 
> But the problem is denialists believe nuclear and tar sands can maintain all those modern conveniences out of one side of their mouth, and then insist there's plenty of crude out the other.
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what your point is here. That oil industry workers are not recognized enough? I can assure you, those who recognize peak are far more aware of the work petrol insiders do and how important it is than those who deny global depletion is even happening, or those that insist the markets will cure all, regardless of how much is left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, not sure what the point is here, germane to the discussion, besides to shine a light on how important the industry is to their own personal well-being. That's kinda obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> I've been saying that since contributing here. This is a point that denialists need to get their head around, not us. We're fully aware.
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you derisively and continually scorn the hand that feeds you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who? How? The argument here, at least from our standpoint, is "where is it?", not "stop doing it!"
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Goddamn bunch of fucking idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice... But, who?
Click to expand...






So tell us oh wise and wonderful.  What is your plan?


----------



## JiggsCasey

westwall said:


> So tell us oh wise and wonderful.  What is your plan?



Thanks. I would be willing to write something up that loosely adheres to and expands upon the Rimini Protocol of 2003.

But if you're going to continue being a dick about the topic on a personal level, and sway the goal posts and distort the central issue, I don't really see a point.

Acknowledge the problem, then we can find/debate solutions.


----------



## westwall

JiggsCasey said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us oh wise and wonderful.  What is your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks. I would be willing to write something up that loosely adheres to and expands upon the Rimini Protocol of 2003.
> 
> But if you're going to continue being a dick about the topic on a personal level, and sway the goal posts and distort the central issue, I don't really see a point.
> 
> Acknowledge the problem, then we can find/debate solutions.
Click to expand...





Don't act like a juvenile calling people names and I will be quite happy to listen to you.  You antagonise people endlessly which doesn't help you.  I don't acknowledge the "problem" but your solutions might still be beneficial even without the "problem".  If your solutions require a "problem" to be beneficial that tends to imply that your solutions are not beneficial overall.


----------



## Old Rocks

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Revere said:
> 
> 
> 
> Superpowers like China and Russia are contracting with countries all over the world for more oil exploration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *They surely have. And this is the result.*
> 
> Peak oil primer and links | Energy Bulletin
> 
> So when will oil peak globally?
> Later in life M. King Hubbert predicted a global oil peak between 1995 and 2000. He may have been close to the mark, except that the geopolitically induced oil shocks of the 1970s slowed the growth of our use of oil.
> 
> As represented in the following figure, global oil discovery peaked in the late 1960s. Since the mid-1980s, oil companies have been finding less oil than we have been consuming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how many months are left before there is no oil?
Click to expand...


So how many months left before you are totally senile? You know damned well that is not what the Hubbert Peak represents. Read the information, obviously you have never done so. Possibly the only 'geologist' in the world who has not. Hmm.....


----------



## Old Rocks

westwall said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us oh wise and wonderful.  What is your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks. I would be willing to write something up that loosely adheres to and expands upon the Rimini Protocol of 2003.
> 
> But if you're going to continue being a dick about the topic on a personal level, and sway the goal posts and distort the central issue, I don't really see a point.
> 
> Acknowledge the problem, then we can find/debate solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't act like a juvenile calling people names and I will be quite happy to listen to you.  You antagonise people endlessly which doesn't help you.  I don't acknowledge the "problem" but your solutions might still be beneficial even without the "problem".  If your solutions require a "problem" to be beneficial that tends to imply that your solutions are not beneficial overall.
Click to expand...


Now that is complete bullshit, Walleyes. You will not listen to anyone other than doped out radio jocks. You claim to be a geologist and a member of the AGU and the Royal Society. Yet you not only state that all of the other scientists that are members are lying concerning global warming, you are ignorant of most of what they have said. Your posts and level of replys surely do not support your claims of being a geologist.


----------



## RGR

Old Rocks said:


> Of the 65 largest oil producing countries in the world, up to 54 have passed their peak of production and are now in decline, including the USA in 1970, Indonesia in 1997, Australia in 2000, the UK in 1999, Norway in 2001, and Mexico in 2004.



What happens when some, or all, of those places peak again? Mexico, for example, has peaked on at least 3 separate occasions. So we wait around...some more countries peak...again....and we start the debate all over again when they do. 



			
				Old Rocks said:
			
		

> Hubbert's methods, as well as other methodologies, have been used to make various projections about the global oil peak, with results ranging from 'already peaked', to the more optimistic 2035.



Hubberts methods have been thoroughly discredited from several angles. Would you like a reference?



			
				Old Rocks said:
			
		

> In response to the questionable reliability of IEA reports, several notable scientists have attempted independent studies, most famously, Colin Campbell and associates with the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO).



Good one...Colin predicted peak oil in 1989....I wonder if peakers talk about that "famous" prediction?


----------



## westwall

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> *They surely have. And this is the result.*
> 
> Peak oil primer and links | Energy Bulletin
> 
> So when will oil peak globally?
> Later in life M. King Hubbert predicted a global oil peak between 1995 and 2000. He may have been close to the mark, except that the geopolitically induced oil shocks of the 1970s slowed the growth of our use of oil.
> 
> As represented in the following figure, global oil discovery peaked in the late 1960s. Since the mid-1980s, oil companies have been finding less oil than we have been consuming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how many months are left before there is no oil?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So how many months left before you are totally senile? You know damned well that is not what the Hubbert Peak represents. Read the information, obviously you have never done so. Possibly the only 'geologist' in the world who has not. Hmm.....
Click to expand...





olfraud I was first aquainted with Hubbert in 1969!  I have read his stuff many times over the years.  Some I agree with and some I don't.  So far the world is not aggreeing with him.  So far regulation has been the greatest cause of lack of production.  This is not to say that there may be indeed a peak oil.  We honestly don't know.

The abiotic people actually did find oil where none should be, more importantly where none should ever have been.  The fact that the Peak Oil adherents ignore that speaks volumes.


----------



## RGR

Old Rocks said:


> OK, dumb ass. Here it is again.
> 
> energybulletin.net/primer--- Energy Bulletin



Oh yes, almost forgot to mention. Propaganda. Try referencing real science on the topic sometime, these guys certainly don't count.


----------



## westwall

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks. I would be willing to write something up that loosely adheres to and expands upon the Rimini Protocol of 2003.
> 
> But if you're going to continue being a dick about the topic on a personal level, and sway the goal posts and distort the central issue, I don't really see a point.
> 
> Acknowledge the problem, then we can find/debate solutions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't act like a juvenile calling people names and I will be quite happy to listen to you.  You antagonise people endlessly which doesn't help you.  I don't acknowledge the "problem" but your solutions might still be beneficial even without the "problem".  If your solutions require a "problem" to be beneficial that tends to imply that your solutions are not beneficial overall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now that is complete bullshit, Walleyes. You will not listen to anyone other than doped out radio jocks. You claim to be a geologist and a member of the AGU and the Royal Society. Yet you not only state that all of the other scientists that are members are lying concerning global warming, you are ignorant of most of what they have said. Your posts and level of replys surely do not support your claims of being a geologist.
Click to expand...






My gosh but you are full of crap.  I have said repeatedly that the LEADERSHIP of the organizations is in the pocket of the AGW mafia for a variety of reasons.  The general memberships are not.  Get your facts straight before you hit me with your mock outrage!


----------



## westwall

RGR said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of the 65 largest oil producing countries in the world, up to 54 have passed their peak of production and are now in decline, including the USA in 1970, Indonesia in 1997, Australia in 2000, the UK in 1999, Norway in 2001, and Mexico in 2004.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What happens when some, or all, of those places peak again? Mexico, for example, has peaked on at least 3 separate occasions. So we wait around...some more countries peak...again....and we start the debate all over again when they do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hubbert's methods, as well as other methodologies, have been used to make various projections about the global oil peak, with results ranging from 'already peaked', to the more optimistic 2035.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hubberts methods have been thoroughly discredited from several angles. Would you like a reference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In response to the questionable reliability of IEA reports, several notable scientists have attempted independent studies, most famously, Colin Campbell and associates with the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good one...Colin predicted peak oil in 1989....I wonder if peakers talk about that "famous" prediction?
Click to expand...





Yes I would like a reference please.


----------



## RGR

Old Rocks said:


> Since the mid-1980s, oil companies have been finding less oil than we have been consuming.



I can't believe people are still falling for this one. Is this really the ignorance level on this topic around here?

Mid 80's? Fine.

In 1985 the EIA says that the world reserve inventory was approximately 699 billion barrels. Humans have been using between 20-30 billion a year from then till now. Lets call consumed barrels to be approximately 25 billion* 20 years means we used about 500 billion of those through 2005 or so ( no desire to update for most recent numbers, the effect is the same ), which means in 2005 we should have 199 billion remaining if we replaced NONE. If we replaced ALL we consumed, we would still have 699 billion remaining. In 2005, we had 1250 billions in reserve inventory. 

So not only did we find barrels for EVERY barrel we used, but just for fun and giggles, the industry found not just 1 to replace it with, but 2!

This is good.


----------



## RGR

mdn2000 said:


> U.S. geologist M. King Hubbert, flawed analysis based on a basic mis-understanding of geology.



Hubberts concept isn't based on geology, its based on trendology. Two completely different things.



			
				mdn2000 said:
			
		

> When U.S. geologist M. King Hubbert introduced his Peak Oil Theory he did not understand the geology of the earth.



Yes he did. Hubbert was a great scientist with multiple contributions to the geosciences. Peak oil was not what he is famous for in the geoscience community, and I think he might have found it amusing, the religion people have built around his trendology.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The consequences tend to be where the rub is. Peak oilers want the world to die, yuppies in particular, Humvee owners if possible, and if you don't plan on becoming Amish...well....you don't believe enough yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is laughably pretentious and grossly inaccurate. It is akin to pretending "if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists." Speaking of dogma.
Click to expand...


Quite true. And its what peakers do. And your implication that this attitude of peakers resembles a religion is reasonable because...they are one.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Dead wrong. Just more honest with ourselves based on the data, and not mired in denial.



Denial? Its a cornerstone of the peaker religion.



			
				JIggsCasey said:
			
		

> I don't see it that way, but at least ours is based on hard geological and economic data, rather than vague allegory in a funny book.



Most peakers do not understand geology. Most peakers can't add 2+2 and get the same answer twice in a row. And Hubberts trendology wasn't presented as an economic effect at the time, economics are where peakers tried to take the idea after the world suffered through global peak oil....in 1978.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> And the countless scientists who have followed who have all corroborated that his main thesis was dead-on correct, as you've conceded.



Dead on accurate? Hubbert predicted that US natural gas production in 2010 should be approximately 4 TCF or so. We produce 20+. So now peakers think that 300%+ margins of error are "dead-on"?  Like I said earlier...what does 2+2= ?



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> But if you'd like,  we can get into it with greater depth, and you can point out how we somehow "miss it" as it relates to our undeniable global energy crisis.



Sure. Pick a single point you like the best, or consider the easiest to defend. Its not like peakers have much of value to discuss in their Sunday school level geoscience discussions, but I'm always game for yet another example of "pin the tail on Amish wanna-be's".


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Oddball said:


> oil gusher in California
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's so much oil oozing out of the ground in the Santa Barbara area, that you could strike a gusher if you chunked your approach shot at the local golf course.
> 
> But even _*propose*_ drilling more wells there and the granola heads would collectively poop themselves.
Click to expand...


I wonder if those granola heads know exactly what it is that moves those luxary cars they own and are driven around in?


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us oh wise and wonderful.  What is your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks. I would be willing to write something up that loosely adheres to and expands upon the Rimini Protocol of 2003.
Click to expand...


It might have credibility if Campbell wasn't involved. Got anything from someone who hasn't been claiming peak oil happened since 1989? Deffeyes got started late, does he have a scare mongering routine you can lay down instead?



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Acknowledge the problem, then we can find/debate solutions.



Everybody acknowledges the problem, our President was telling us we were running out back in 1977. Didn't you notice? The solution was.....we ignored his geologically ignorant butt.


----------



## westwall

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us oh wise and wonderful.  What is your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks. I would be willing to write something up that loosely adheres to and expands upon the Rimini Protocol of 2003.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It might have credibility if Campbell wasn't involved. Got anything from someone who hasn't been claiming peak oil happened since 1989? Deffeyes got started late, does he have a scare mongering routine you can lay down instead?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Acknowledge the problem, then we can find/debate solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everybody acknowledges the problem, our President was telling us we were running out back in 1977. Didn't you notice? The solution was.....we ignored his geologically ignorant butt.
Click to expand...





That is the universal problem isn't it.  The Peakers assume that there must be a problem for their solutions to work.  It's kind of like medicine, if you have to believe in it for it to work, it ain't medicine.  It's a belief system.


----------



## RGR

westwall said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hubberts methods have been thoroughly discredited from several angles. Would you like a reference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I would like a reference please.
Click to expand...


Sure. We'll start with an easy one.

Cavallo, A.J., 2004, Hubbert's petroleum production model: an evaluation and implications for World Oil production forecasts, Natural Resources Research,  Vol. 13, no. 4

Basically, Hubberts method will predict a URR for the US between 200 and 600 billion barrels with the same statistical goodness of fit measure. Phrased another way, you can honestly pick any line through the data you'd like as long as you don't mind an error bar of 3X, at a minimum. Cavallo didn't test outside those bounds.

So, when we apply the same method to the world, our error bar can range all the way up to 6 or 9 billion barrels for URR without any issues at all. Little bit higher than peakers are claiming right now, ain't it!

Hard to build a peak at the halfway point when the halfway point could be another 60 years down the road, eh?


----------



## RGR

westwall said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody acknowledges the problem, our President was telling us we were running out back in 1977. Didn't you notice? The solution was.....we ignored his geologically ignorant butt.
> 
> 
> 
> That is the universal problem isn't it.  The Peakers assume that there must be a problem for their solutions to work.  It's kind of like medicine, if you have to believe in it for it to work, it ain't medicine.  It's a belief system.
Click to expand...


Sure. It's why its easier to just label it a religion and be done with it. Lets be honest, these people don't actually STUDY this stuff prior to buying in...they buy in first (I want the world to end, I want yuppies to die, SUV drivers are scum, my life sucks and I'm depressed) and then cast around for a decent trigger for a Rapture scenario.

They are fascinating from a psychological standpoint, even when you bump into the one who knows something about geology, like say Colin Campbell, his belief system, his NEED to find a way to kill off people, overwhelms him. And he starts off by saying things which are patently ignorant, the guy doesn't even really show up at the international conferences anymore, my bet is he got tired of being laughed at during round table discussions. How many times would YOU want 20 years of bad predictions kicked back in your face to demonstrate how silly you've been?


----------



## mdn2000

RGR said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. geologist M. King Hubbert, flawed analysis based on a basic mis-understanding of geology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hubberts concept isn't based on geology, its based on trendology. Two completely different things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When U.S. geologist M. King Hubbert introduced his Peak Oil Theory he did not understand the geology of the earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes he did. Hubbert was a great scientist with multiple contributions to the geosciences. Peak oil was not what he is famous for in the geoscience community, and I think he might have found it amusing, the religion people have built around his trendology.
Click to expand...


I have admitted time and time again I am not an expert on Hubbert. I have challenged people to post a link to the theory or whatever Hubbert wrote, no link so far, links to articles about Hubbert but no theory. So if you know much or more, go ahead how geology does not play a part in Hubberts' theory. I am not saying I disagree, simply that I have never seen the theory and with as many posts that I take on, I have not the time for another research project which is kind of what an adequate response entails. 

No geology in Peak Oil theory. I am curious and I stand by my statement about Hubberts. What was his great contribution you refer to, I am also curious as to why you mention a great contribution but dont mention what that contribution was. 

I have no idea of who this man was. He is not mentioned, or if he is mentioned I missed it or have not gotten to Hubberts in any books I have. Boy, I wish I was home in California, instead I am in Brazil and will not return to the United States before March of next year. Eight weeks, I miss my books. I can enlarge my thumbnail below and see my entire John McPhee collection on the second shelf from the top, 2nd from the left. The next shelf, 2nd from the top, has my two volume set on oil, wish I finished reading it.


----------



## RGR

mdn2000 said:


> Yes he did. Hubbert was a great scientist with multiple contributions to the geosciences. Peak oil was not what he is famous for in the geoscience community, and I think he might have found it amusing, the religion people have built around his trendology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have admitted time and time again I am not an expert on Hubbert. I have challenged people to post a link to the theory or whatever Hubbert wrote, no link so far, links to articles about Hubbert but no theory.
Click to expand...


For starters, links do not define the known world. Prior to the web, there was this place called a library. A magical place, which put the world at your fingertips, with these devices called books. Journals. Great stuff.

With that in mind, what parts of Hubbert's work are you interested in? 



			
				mdn2000 said:
			
		

> So if you know much or more, go ahead how geology does not play a part in Hubberts' theory.



Sure. Take some data. Draw a line through it. Assume that where the data stops, and the extrapolation of the line continues, this must obviously be predictive in nature. Hubbert did it in 1956 with grid paper and a french curve. Presto. No geology required.



			
				mdn2000 said:
			
		

> No geology in Peak Oil theory. I am curious and I stand by my statement about Hubberts. What was his great contribution you refer to, I am also curious as to why you mention a great contribution but dont mention what that contribution was.



Fluid flow through porous media. Still being quoted in hydrology journals today. The basics of stress fields in rocks, used to predict which way hydraulic fracturing is likely to go, and rock elasticity.


----------



## mdn2000

RGR said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes he did. Hubbert was a great scientist with multiple contributions to the geosciences. Peak oil was not what he is famous for in the geoscience community, and I think he might have found it amusing, the religion people have built around his trendology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have admitted time and time again I am not an expert on Hubbert. I have challenged people to post a link to the theory or whatever Hubbert wrote, no link so far, links to articles about Hubbert but no theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For starters, links do not define the known world. Prior to the web, there was this place called a library. A magical place, which put the world at your fingertips, with these devices called books. Journals. Great stuff.
> 
> With that in mind, what parts of Hubbert's work are you interested in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if you know much or more, go ahead how geology does not play a part in Hubberts' theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. Take some data. Draw a line through it. Assume that where the data stops, and the extrapolation of the line continues, this must obviously be predictive in nature. Hubbert did it in 1956 with grid paper and a french curve. Presto. No geology required.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No geology in Peak Oil theory. I am curious and I stand by my statement about Hubberts. What was his great contribution you refer to, I am also curious as to why you mention a great contribution but dont mention what that contribution was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fluid flow through porous media. Still being quoted in hydrology journals today. The basics of stress fields in rocks, used to predict which way hydraulic fracturing is likely to go, and rock elasticity.
Click to expand...


I am well aware that links do not define the world we live in, that said, you must admit links define much of the knowledge we can present on a message board. If one is knows the subject then one can present a pretty good post and it may be accepted. If one can link to an article or two that helps. Given the amount of technical papers found on the web that can be presented with a link. Cut and Paste from a pdf is great stuff. Having to type a quote from a book is cumbersome and takes time. I guess you skipped over my comments on owning a library and decided to take a poke at me as if I am a child that must be schooled as to what a book is. Take a look, that is a thumbnail of most the books I have. Over Eight Hundred Books are in my pic.

Yes libraries are great, I own one. Over a thousand books, I have a bad memory but I have read a fair percentage of my books. 

So it seems you need a bit of schooling of what can be found in links. Seems the same thing as a library if you know what to search for. 

Energy from Fossil Fuels



> One of the most disturbing ecological influences of recent millennia is the human species' proclivity for the capture of energy, resulting in a progressve in crease of the human populaton. This is borne out by the growth curve of human population since 1650, shown in Fig. 4, based on the studies of Carr Saunders (1), and the recent estimate of Davis *3). According to these estimates the world population has increased from about 545 million in 1659 to 2,181 miullion by 1940. The greatest rate of increase during this period has been that of the last half=century, during which the world population has been increasing at such a rate as to double itself every century, or at an annual rate of increase of -.7 %
> 
> Such a rate in not "normal," as can be seen by backward extrapolation. If it had prevailed throughout human history, beginning with the mythical Adam and Eve, .........
> 
> From the foregoing data it should be clear that while we are concerned with a progression of ancient origin, the developments within the last century, and especially within the last few decades are decidedly exceptional. One cannot refrain from asking, "Where is it taking us, how long can we keep it up".
> 
> ....Yet despite this, it will still be physically possible to stabilize the human population at some reasonable figure, and by means of the energy from sunshine alone utilize low-grade concentratons of materials and still maintain a high energy industrial civilization indefinitely.



That is what is found in a link, like it, its a bit more that you were willing to present in response to me. Nice huh. Seems Hubbert did not believe in Adam and Eve and took the opportunity to call it a MYTH. Tells a lot about Hubbert. 

I also ran across someone who described Hubbert as hot headed, easily angered, I hope I saved the page, most likely without a link I wont find it, but I am using Google chrome so I will restore the last few "tabs", I closed. That is what technology is, get out of the library and we find that using google and technology is useful, thanks for educating me what books and libraries are, you can thank me later as I teach you about technology.

So based on what I find using modern technology vs what you have presented, I have found Hubbert is most likely a Liberal, no belief in God, much in his article talks about the population and the increase not being normal. Seems to be about what your saying about Cambell or the "Peakers". 

So your obviously a bit perturbed about something I wrote, you defended Hubbert as a great Geologist, your posting everywhere in Energy threads discussing Oil, so your the new expert to challenge us all, right, I say perturbed for you ask a question, what about Hubbert am I interested in, come on, is that a taunt, you got to be kidding right. 

Think about the context in which where you ask that of me, you obviously read my posts, right, you have to be able to see what the hell we are talking about, whats with the game.

Thats all Hubbert did, thanks, I understand. Of course that is wrong, geology is required. Hubbert states as much in, Science, February 4, 1949. I would give you the link and quote but you got your library card so you can jump in the old station wagon, burn the gas, and go read it if you care to discuss the geology Hubbert used. Again, if only there was a link to the theory we could see if its only "grid paper, a pencil, and a french curve." Somehow I find that to be a pretty lame explanation of such a great scientists work, regardless what one thinks of the theory (have you figured out which theory I have been asking about yet?)



> Sure. Take some data. Draw a line through it. Assume that where the data stops, and the extrapolation of the line continues, this must obviously be predictive in nature. Hubbert did it in 1956 with grid paper and a french curve. Presto. No geology required.



You quote me well, how come you need me to ask again what I wanted to know about Hubbert, how could you miss that and quote me at the same time. Its pretty simple, I want to see Hubbert's peak oil theory, I dont accept grid paper and a line drawn through, that is bullshit. I know you wont be able to provide the theory, right, its in the library, it may be on the web, and I may find it yet, it may be on the site I just linked to, it appears not but it may. Everyone knows the theory but nobody can produce a thing directly from the theory. That is what raises my eyebrows.

Anyhow, thanks for the education on Links and Books. I am also far from done, I am holding back, you missed something very relevant, I may be wrong about my assumption, I am busy looking for links, they actually lead to books, like you find in libraries, which reminds me, I had to type my quotes and I am not going back to correct my typing errors or fixing my dyslexic gaffs.


----------



## mdn2000

Maybe this is the theory, and being how everyone has described the theory as Hubbert's Peak Oil Theory, this seems to be why I could not find it, its not called that at all. Did someone point this out? I dont think so. Hubbert is not an author to "Peak Oil Theory". At least as far as I have found yet. Looks like no cut and paste, its a scanned abstract, I should check but its at least thirty tabs over (that may be confusing to those who use the library, a tab is a page on my google chrome browser, which I guess I have to explain what google chrome is to those who carry their library card_)

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/TechniquesOfPrediction.pdf


----------



## RGR

mdn2000 said:


> I guess you skipped over my comments on owning a library and decided to take a poke at me as if I am a child that must be schooled as to what a book is. Take a look, that is a thumbnail of most the books I have. Over Eight Hundred Books are in my pic.



Actually, no, I wasn't insulting you, I was making sure you didn't mind what might happen next. My personal JPT (Journal of Petroleum Technology) collection goes back to the 50's. My personal AAPG Bulletin collection starts somewhere in the 50's as well. My SPE digital library is complete from inception through 1997. I've got at least a decades worth of Natural Resources Research as well. I'm running short on room, because all of this is just the paper stuff in my office. 

A lawyer has his law library, a scientist must have his reference material.



			
				mdn2000 said:
			
		

> So it seems you need a bit of schooling of what can be found in links. Seems the same thing as a library if you know what to search for.
> 
> Energy from Fossil Fuels



Everybody has that one, its the original precept for the peak oil religion. How about the one they never quote, the USGS Circular 725 which uses Hubbert's reserve growth equations in USGS assessment methodologies? You see, thats the one which first establishes that Hubbert worked for the USGS (an organization peakers love to hate) and worse yet, built the concept which keeps shooting them straight in the face when it comes to their bad predictions. They don't mention that one often.  Haven't been able to find a link for that one yet, but it should be out there somewhere. You won't find peakers mentioning that little bit of history though.



			
				mdn2000 said:
			
		

> So your obviously a bit perturbed about something I wrote, you defended Hubbert as a great Geologist, your posting everywhere in Energy threads discussing Oil, so your the new expert to challenge us all, right, I say perturbed for you ask a question, what about Hubbert am I interested in, come on, is that a taunt, you got to be kidding right.



Hubbert had some...interesting...personal characteristics. Fortunately, I can judge the quality of what he thought by tracing his publications through time, science is great that way, comparing his to both his detractors and supporters, and seeing where it grew over the years. I don't really care if he believed in God, voted Democrat or chased sheep around his farm looking for something his wife wouldn't provide, as long as it didn't show up as an advocacy position in peer reviewed research.



			
				mdn2000 said:
			
		

> Its pretty simple, I want to see Hubbert's peak oil theory, I dont accept grid paper and a line drawn through, that is bullshit.



You provided the appropriate reference to answer your own question. The religion of peak was built on that 1956 publication. You don't like the way he did it by counting grids on the paper? I would suggest a seance, tell the man about it yourself. Certainly you won't find me defending the ridiculous position advocated by peakers.



			
				mdn2000 said:
			
		

> I know you wont be able to provide the theory, right, its in the library, it may be on the web, and I may find it yet, it may be on the site I just linked to, it appears not but it may. Everyone knows the theory but nobody can produce a thing directly from the theory. That is what raises my eyebrows.



The peakers have established an entire religion based on the Nuclear Energy and the Fossil Fuels paper. You might not like it, you can wish for more, but that is the point of origin for their religion. Don't blame me, I think its ridiculous to concoct a religion from it as well, certainly Hubbert didn't say "Go forth and act ignorant in my name" at the end of the paper.


----------



## RGR

mdn2000 said:


> Hubbert is not an author to "Peak Oil Theory". At least as far as I have found yet.



You know, I think I have actually seen a video of the old guy, in his later years, responding to a comment where the words "peak oil theory" were actually used?

I don't recall Hubbert ever saying that in a publication though, but who knows, he was quite popular after the US peak in the early 70's, I've been quite surprised at the Utube videos his Priests and acolytes have assembled over the years. Needless to say, when publishing you don't tend to quote odds and ends or small refinements along the way, but the original seminal work. Hubbert's is 1956 as far as Peakers are concerned, and the one most commonly cited in the literature. Some might argue that his 1949 work was the actual origin, but the clincher is the US prediction, from which peaker mythology flows.


----------



## Samson

westwall said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks. I would be willing to write something up that loosely adheres to and expands upon the Rimini Protocol of 2003.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It might have credibility if Campbell wasn't involved. Got anything from someone who hasn't been claiming peak oil happened since 1989? Deffeyes got started late, does he have a scare mongering routine you can lay down instead?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Acknowledge the problem, then we can find/debate solutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everybody acknowledges the problem, our President was telling us we were running out back in 1977. Didn't you notice? The solution was.....we ignored his geologically ignorant butt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the universal problem isn't it.  The Peakers assume that there must be a problem for their solutions to work.  It's kind of like medicine, if you have to believe in it for it to work, it ain't medicine.  It's a belief system.
Click to expand...


No, the "Peakers" (Peckers?) have no solution.


----------



## RGR

Samson said:


> No, the "Peakers" (Peckers?) have no solution.



Thats because their religion isn't designed to need one...they want peak oil for the trigger for one version or another of the apocalypse. They don't want to SOLVE anything, it would ruin the Rapture.


----------



## mdn2000

RGR, You got thick skin and a good sense of humor, I think. I am a bit surprised I did not get to you with my jabs. You did piss me off explaining links and books as you can see. Prepare me for what comes next, I eat a post or two and nobody ever knows, nobody knows me, I could care less what comes next of if I am wrong a time or two. It happens, its also a technique, put something out there and see how well I can defend it, I learn a whole lot as I go.

Hubbert, I somehow fat fingered a great post and lost it so this is my second time, its past my bedtime, I am in Brazil on a vacation forced on my by immigrations and me marrying a Brazilian woman. So its late. Real late, I ate the last three hours on Hubbert. 

I like the stuff on Population that I quoted from Hubbert. I know so many Liberals that cry the population is to big, the only problem we have ever had, I see that Hubbert was one. Religion I mentioned not so much as I care but it does further show what Hubbert is, that with the population concern, maybe even a reward he got from one of the Rockefeller foundations or college. No time to quote and paste, anyhow the Oil Fortune of Rockefeller also started a foundation one of the great-grandchildren or great-niece ran, it was about population or population control or studies, I should be better equipped to present this and sometimes I take the time but I spent way to much of my day here on USMB. 

I also see much of Hubbert's prediction came from someone else's work, which in geology is not a smoking gun, just how things are learned and developed.

I also see Hubbert worked with Kenneth S. Deffeyes which may make me eat my original post you responded to and confirm your rebuttal, take a guess at the point I wanted to use to discredit Hubbert. I am still researching and am leaving the post as bait for others.


----------



## RGR

mdn2000 said:


> I also see Hubbert worked with Kenneth S. Deffeyes which may make me eat my original post you responded to and confirm your rebuttal, take a guess at the point I wanted to use to discredit Hubbert. I am still researching and am leaving the post as bait for others.



Hubbert was a scientist, having people trying to blow holes in your ideas comes with the territory. Deffeyes worked in the Shell labs when Hubbert was "da man", certainly his later expertise as a basin and range expert at Princeton wouldn't lead anyone to believe he was an oil and gas expert. Neither does his book, its nice, lots of anecdotal stories, and then lots of bad trendology. Normal for peakers really, as I've said previously, they don't do much geology.


----------



## mdn2000

RGR said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also see Hubbert worked with Kenneth S. Deffeyes which may make me eat my original post you responded to and confirm your rebuttal, take a guess at the point I wanted to use to discredit Hubbert. I am still researching and am leaving the post as bait for others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hubbert was a scientist, having people trying to blow holes in your ideas comes with the territory. Deffeyes worked in the Shell labs when Hubbert was "da man", certainly his later expertise as a basin and range expert at Princeton wouldn't lead anyone to believe he was an oil and gas expert. Neither does his book, its nice, lots of anecdotal stories, and then lots of bad trendology. Normal for peakers really, as I've said previously, they don't do much geology.
Click to expand...


Well that don't help me and its real late now, so to the questions I have been researching, which side of the debate was Hubbert on when it came to the revolution of plate tectonic theory, seems a relationship with Deffeyes means Hubbert may of contributed data or been involved being in his position and with the resources of Shell. There were to distinct camps. 

If Hubbert was opposite Deffeyes (seems unlikely?), how loud or vocal was he against plate tectonics, or should I be saying ocean floor spreading. Who knows. Its late.

Seems the little things I read about Hubbert's personality makes him sound like he had a short temper and was stubborn.

If you dismiss geology as not being involved in the theory that punches a few wholes on my idea that the new theory of plate tectonics and ocean floor spreading would effect the work Hubbert did predicting oil reserves. Its noted Hubbert was only accurate about the United States, Hubbert's world prediction was just plain old wrong. I through the "plain old' in there so my post is indisputable. To me only being accurate within the USA means the revolution of plate tectonics and ocean floor spreading invalidates Hubbert's work and the work that proceeded Hubbert.

Hubbert's work was in 1949, the paper I qouted above, so the work began much earlier than his later worker (profound statement), which side of the fence did the scientist that Hubbert used, which side of the ocean spreading debate were they on, how did the later revolution effect there work.

Everything changed in the 60's, ocean floor spreading plate tectonic theory. If I was home I would quote John Mcphee, his work, Annals of the Former World, has the details also an index, which was not in the individual books that were put together to create the latest compilation which is Annals of the Former World. Of course you can blow up my thumbnail of my library and see the book sitting on the shelf. I almost think I read something about Hubbert, wish I had a digital copy.

If Hubbert did not take into account the new theory, all Hubbert's work is faulty, same for the work of the others Hubbert used and needed.

Thats all I got, wish I took the time to find all my answers on my own but sometimes the quick answer is best or a post is made that helps me with my search. 

Off to bed. Six hour time difference from California to Rio.

and to add if it needs stating to others who comprehend when the read, Hubbert and all the work came before


----------



## RGR

mdn2000 said:


> If Hubbert was opposite Deffeyes (seems unlikely?), how loud or vocal was he against plate tectonics, or should I be saying ocean floor spreading. Who knows. Its late.



I don't know Hubbert's opinion on plate tectonics. Certainly the timing of that idea and its acceptance in the geologic community would have been going on while Hubbert was in his prime.



			
				mdn2000 said:
			
		

> Seems the little things I read about Hubbert's personality makes him sound like he had a short temper and was stubborn.



Could be. I'm an arrogant prick myself, with a low tolerance for beginners and fools. Maybe thats why peakers naturally rub me the wrong way...besides being religious nutters. We all have our weaknesses.



			
				mdn2000 said:
			
		

> If Hubbert did not take into account the new theory, all Hubbert's work is faulty, same for the work of the others Hubbert used and needed.



Hubbert's trendology on oil and gas production has nothing to do with plate tectonics. Like I said previously, there isn't any geology in his fitting a line to data and assuming it is predictive in nature.


----------



## mdn2000

RGR said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Hubbert was opposite Deffeyes (seems unlikely?), how loud or vocal was he against plate tectonics, or should I be saying ocean floor spreading. Who knows. Its late.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know Hubbert's opinion on plate tectonics. Certainly the timing of that idea and its acceptance in the geologic community would have been going on while Hubbert was in his prime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems the little things I read about Hubbert's personality makes him sound like he had a short temper and was stubborn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could be. I'm an arrogant prick myself, with a low tolerance for beginners and fools. Maybe thats why peakers naturally rub me the wrong way...besides being religious nutters. We all have our weaknesses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Hubbert did not take into account the new theory, all Hubbert's work is faulty, same for the work of the others Hubbert used and needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hubbert's trendology on oil and gas production has nothing to do with plate tectonics. Like I said previously, there isn't any geology in his fitting a line to data and assuming it is predictive in nature.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the response. I am not sure how much work I will put into following up on any of my questions. John McPhee, sounds like you may of read his work, he wrote some great books about geology, traveled with Deffeyes as the geology was explained, books like Basin and Range, Assembling California,  a couple others all assembled into on volume. 

I also have a nice two volume set on the history of oil, I got sidetracked right after 1850, at the point where I learned refining oil started with plant oils to compete with expensive whale oil. Seems like the technology to make "bio-fuels" is pretty old.


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> Thats because their religion isn't designed to need one...they want peak oil for the trigger for one version or another of the apocalypse. They don't want to SOLVE anything, it would ruin the Rapture.



It's interesting that you'd run your mouth about "straw man creation" being levied upon you, when in fact your bloviations the past 2-3 pages of this thread completely rely on a made up narrative of some "religion" and endless insults of others' intelligence.

At least you ADMIT you're an "arrogant prick."

Your Frank Drebbin-like "nothing to see here" routine is witty, and helps the dumber members of your camp feel better inside... but, really, it's nothing new, and not remotely accurate. Unfortunately for your camp, your act never stands up to the facts. 

So let's go ahead, then, and just cut the crap and get down to brass tacks: 

For all your personal insinuation, I'm pretty sure somewhere in there you have a position that there is no peak, though it's hard to say WHAT your point even is, besides being a dick. So, if your vague assertion is accurate, and there is no peak, ... then:

- how/why is the latest IEA annual report finally admitting peak is here after years of denial? 
- why would the latest Joint Chiefs' Joint Operating Environment report claim 10 million barrels per day of global shortfall (between expected demand/supply) by 2015?
- why would our own U.S. Dept of Energy, British and German governments, Oxford Univ., Lloyd's of London, ASPO and even the CEO of Total Oil all corroborate that same assessment by the JOE?
- Why are we strip mining western Canada for painfully inefficient tar sands?
- Why would we be drilling to new underwater depth and enormous financial costs?
- Why would we be occupying sovereign nations involved in oil production/transporation for 
10+ years at a tremendous financial burden for our already recessed economy?

Are they all in on some conspiracy? If so, for what purpose? If there's "plenty" of the cheap easy to extract light crude, why the fuss?

Gosh, just how ARE these men wrong... or why are they collectively lying to the world? If the latter is true, where did they meet to get their story straight?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUVY2qrEfd8[/ame]


----------



## westwall

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats because their religion isn't designed to need one...they want peak oil for the trigger for one version or another of the apocalypse. They don't want to SOLVE anything, it would ruin the Rapture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting that you'd run your mouth about "straw man creation" being levied upon you, when in fact your bloviations the past 2-3 pages of this thread completely rely on a made up narrative of some "religion" and endless insults of others' intelligence.
> 
> At least you ADMIT you're an "arrogant prick."
> 
> Your Frank Drebbin-like "nothing to see here" routine is witty, and helps the dumber members of your camp feel better inside... but, really, it's nothing new, and not remotely accurate. Unfortunately for your camp, your act never stands up to the facts.
> 
> So let's go ahead, then, and just cut the crap and get down to brass tacks:
> 
> For all your personal insinuation, I'm pretty sure somewhere in there you have a position that there is no peak, though it's hard to say WHAT your point even is, besides being a dick. So, if your vague assertion is accurate, and there is no peak, ... then:
> 
> - how/why is the latest IEA annual report finally admitting peak is here after years of denial?
> - why would the latest Joint Chiefs' Joint Operating Environment report claim 10 million barrels per day of global shortfall (between expected demand/supply) by 2015?
> - why would our own U.S. Dept of Energy, British and German governments, Oxford Univ., Lloyd's of London, ASPO and even the CEO of Total Oil all corroborate that same assessment by the JOE?
> - Why are we strip mining western Canada for painfully inefficient tar sands?
> - Why would we be drilling to new underwater depth and enormous financial costs?
> - Why would we be occupying sovereign nations involved in oil production/transporation for
> 10+ years at a tremendous financial burden for our already recessed economy?
> 
> Are they all in on some conspiracy? If so, for what purpose? If there's "plenty" of the cheap easy to extract light crude, why the fuss?
> 
> Gosh, just how ARE these men wrong... or why are they collectively lying to the world? If the latter is true, where did they meet to get their story straight?
> 
> [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUVY2qrEfd8[/ame]
Click to expand...





Jiggs,

Are RGR's numbers correct?  First answer that question.


----------



## code1211

JiggsCasey said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the IRS:
> 
> *PROVED RESERVES:*Quantities of reserves that, based on geologic and engineering data,appear with reasonable certainty to be recoverable in the future from known oil andgas reserves under existing economic and operating conditions.
> 
> http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-mssp/oilgas.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can trot out all the definitions you want that spin it the way you desperately need. I don't see your point, as "reasonable certainly" being the key phrase that makes your angle a semantics argument.
> 
> Now man-up and provide the definition of "technically recoverable" and/or "estimated" reserves.
Click to expand...




Back in the 70's when I was in school and we were just beginning to understand that the USA was not the ivincible that john Wayne led us to believe, the idea of oil shale came to light and do you you know why?

It was because there were only 5 years of reliable oil left in the ground and the oil shale would need to be harvested to make up the shortfall.

Come to find out that the oil compnaies only plan five years into the future for the business planning.  My brother bought a whole raft of oil shale stock in which he took a bath.

The oil shale sits there and we can always rest assured that whatever the cost of oil is, it's just low enough to continue to make oil shale a bad investment. Chin up, though, if gas does go to $5.00/gallon, oil shale becomes economically feasable and we have jobs here at home.  

Of course, someone will need to get dirty to mine this stuff and the EPA is about to outlaw showers and soap.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> It's interesting that you'd run your mouth about "straw man creation" being levied upon you, when in fact your bloviations the past 2-3 pages of this thread completely rely on a made up narrative of some "religion" and endless insults of others' intelligence.



I try to focus more on other's incoherence on basic principles of the geosciences. Peakers just specialize in providing plenty of examples. Pick a single application of their geoscience knowledge and I'll show you. Pick a good one though, no point in doing this exercise with some of the penny anty stuff they churn out.



			
				Jiggscasey said:
			
		

> Unfortunately for your camp, your act never stands up to the facts.



What camp? The camp that knew Jimmy was wrong even as he was telling us we were running out? How did that statement "from your side" hold up to the facts? 



			
				Jiggscasey said:
			
		

> For all your personal insinuation, I'm pretty sure somewhere in there you have a position that there is no peak, though it's hard to say WHAT your point even is, besides being a dick. So, if your vague assertion is accurate, and there is no peak, ... then:



Certainly I never said there was no peak, certainly I've pointed out more than a few of them, sometimes even more than one in a single area! But I'll play along.



			
				Jiggscasey said:
			
		

> - how/why is the latest IEA annual report finally admitting peak is here after years of denial?



For starters, no one ever denies peak, they just don't think its happening tomorrow. The EIA, Yergin, Lynch, they don't deny it either. Matter of fact, I don't know if ANYONE denies that peak will happen at some point. Some aren't as religious as the zealots like about the timing, is all. I'm not familiar with the IEA's past positions on peaks, or no peaks, and considering their limited manpower, I don't know that any position they have is even relevant, from a geologic perspective. They are admitting peak now? Cool...and how much do they project we'll be producing in...say...2020? Only 60 mbo/d? 50 mbo/d? Or more than our current 85 or so?



			
				Jiggscasey said:
			
		

> - why would the latest Joint Chiefs' Joint Operating Environment report claim 10 million barrels per day of global shortfall (between expected demand/supply) by 2015?



For the same reason President Taft set aside the US petroleum reserves.....before you were born. People have been cheerleading "running out" in various guises for that long.



			
				Jiggscasey said:
			
		

> - why would our own U.S. Dept of Energy, British and German governments, Oxford Univ., Lloyd's of London, ASPO and even the CEO of Total Oil all corroborate that same assessment by the JOE?



Now you will have to be more specific. Please list the official position of the DOE related to peak oil. You do realize they were formed to help handle Jimmy's running out hysteria, right? And how poorly that one went? As far as other government entities, sorry, unless you want to start discussing their geologic survey's opinion on the topic, or the USGS's opinion, more trendology doesn't lead to any better of a conclusion that Jimmy came too.



			
				Jiggscasey said:
			
		

> - Why are we strip mining western Canada for painfully inefficient tar sands?



We aren't. The Canadians are. Ask them, but if I were guessing, I'd say its to make some cash.



			
				Jiggscasey said:
			
		

> - Why would we be drilling to new underwater depth and enormous financial costs?



To make money. What, you think when NOCs exclude the majors from the prime resource areas that they should just give up and die?



			
				Jiggscasey said:
			
		

> - Why would we be occupying sovereign nations involved in oil production/transporation for
> 10+ years at a tremendous financial burden for our already recessed economy?



Why would we occupy one of them for 10 years and not leave without taking all their oil? And why would we invade the other which has none? Certainly neither of these have anything to do with peak oil either.

Do you know anything at all about this topic, or is the sort of "proof through innuendo" routine common in your peaker congregation?


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> Why would we occupy one of them for 10 years and not leave without taking all their oil? *And why would we invade the other which has none?* Certainly neither of these have anything to do with peak oil either.



Read slower next time. I mentioned oil transporting nations. Try absorbing a book since 1995 on the Caspian Basin. We've had designs on the TAPI for decades. The oil/gas kinda has to pass through Afghanistan, ... or at least, that was their plan before Chevron revised their Caspain reserve estimates... you know, downward ... again.



RGR said:


> Do you know anything at all about this topic, or is the sort of "proof through innuendo" routine common in your peaker congregation?




LOL... Irony, DUCY? About all you have is innuendo.

You danced around every passage, and ignored the ones you could not spin (the ASPO video). You're not fooling anyone here, Drebbin.  

It's hysterical that you would dismiss the conclusions reached by our own Joint Chiefs and U.S. Dept of Energy as part of some vast conspiracy. A conspiracy you can't really bring yourself to flesh out, just that you're sure there is one. Too funny. All these entities are apparently lying and wrong. Gosh, who CAN we believe any more? 

Your empty cartridge is most transparent in your shanked punt regarding the IEA question. Claiming unawares, and suggesting the International Energy Agency is somehow "undermanned" is painfully lame, and really exposing your weightless agenda here. 

Denying or minimizing global peak production for years, the global energy watch dog finally gave in and acknowledged it all with their latest annual report, "World Energy Outlook 2010"

_"Crude oil output reaches an undulating plateau of around 68-69 mb/d, by 2020, but never regains its all-time peak of 70mb/d reached in 2006.&#8221;
_​The Oil Drum | IEA World Energy Outlook 2010 Now Out; a Preliminary Look

See the "never regains" part? The entire executive summary explains their conclusion, but there, in one sentence, the IEA has finally waved the white flag and admitted we are AT peak. Not coming soon, but AT peak. Period. ... All that follows after this plateau is the terminal decline of global light crude production, the stuff complex societies are utterly built upon. ... I'll let you scramble to "the Google" now to desperately try and discredit the IEA. Commence epic Fox Newslike spin in 10... 9... 8... 

It's the light blue wedge on this graph where the burden falls on your camp. That is the "as yet unknown" capacity required, going forward, just to maintain statis. 






You guys don't really know where that gap is going to come from. All you think you know is what you hope will somehow emerge. Perhaps some vast field beneath the North Pole? Yah. ... Meanwhile, the yellow part? Sands and shale? Not nearly enough, and I'm pretty sure you know it.

As to your confusion regarding sands/shale belonging in the equation I put forth....  well, I'd bring be happy to engage in the topic of net energy, and the EROEI terminology that you dickishly pretend we don't understand .... but considering you seemingly can't make the basic distinction between the investment ratio of heavy and light crude, and it's affects on growth, I don't really see a point. You seem rather hopeless, for all your arrogance.

Thus, we get back to the irony of your post above. Do you have any idea what you're talking about at all on this topic?

Oh, and P.S.: Carter wasn't really wrong.... Neither was the 1970s report "Limits to Growth." ... Do better.... Mmm-kay, straw man champion?


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> Read slower next time. I mentioned oil transporting nations.



Oh. You mean...like a nation grows wheels...and...transports itself? Silly me, not understanding that one, can't say I've ever seen a nation doing this so my experience with them is limited.



			
				Jiggscasey said:
			
		

> About all you have is innuendo.



Well, that and past peaks, claims of peak decades ago, and countries which don't give a whit about Hubbert's method for NOT predicting their production rates. Its usually called "reality".



			
				Jiggscasey said:
			
		

> You danced around every passage, and ignored the ones you could not spin (the ASPO video). You're not fooling anyone here, Drebbin.



ASPO Utube videos as a reference? You do understand what footnotes are for don't you? And why scientists use them in peer reviewed science journals? And how ASPO video's don't have any? Do you even know what science is, or are you really so intellectually limited to think that a VIDEO is somehow relevant? Want me to put together a video saying peak is a religion, and posting it on utube? Then I can quote it as an authoritative reference? Will you believe me then, heck, I would have a video!



			
				Jiggscasey said:
			
		

> It's hysterical that you would dismiss the conclusions reached by our own Joint Chiefs and U.S. Dept of Energy as part of some vast conspiracy.



It's because I am aware of their history. The military was scared spitless of predicted peak back during WWI, you act like them doing this routine all over again is new to you. Why? Don't they teach basic history at Peaker Seminary? And you haven't provided the reference for the DOE position on peak oil...why not? You keep whining about everyone else needing references, and then you can't provide an easy, taxpayer funded and undoubtedly listed on a website somewhere one yourself?



			
				Jiggscasey said:
			
		

> The entire executive summary explains their conclusion, but there, in one sentence, the IEA has finally waved the white flag and admitted we are AT peak.



Why are you surprised? We were at peak in 78/79, went on for more than a decade. So we've got another one? Or yet ANOTHER one in the future? Cool....think anyone will notice any of them either?

[quote="JIggscasey]
 I'll let you scramble to "the Google" now to desperately try and discredit the IEA. Commence epic Fox Newslike spin in 10... 9... 8... [/quote]

Why would I do that? Last year they said we were good to go until 2030. This year we're still good to go to 2035, you provided the information in your own graph. What are you whining about? Peak oil happened, yeah! Now bring on all the other stuff growing oil production to 2035. Certainly I'll take IEA's word for those volumes over a peaker any day of the week. Thanks for the graph.









			
				Jiggscasey said:
			
		

> You guys don't really know where that gap is going to come from.



Sure we do. Same place its been coming from for decades. Are you really this ignorant about where future oil supply comes from? Here's the next 30 or 40 years. Take a second, learn something.

JPT: The Next Trillion: Anticipating and Enabling Game-Changing Recoveries April06



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> As to your confusion regarding sands/shale belonging in the equation I put forth....  well, I'd bring be happy to engage in the topic of net energy, and the EROEI terminology that you dickishly pretend we don't understand ....



I haven't seen you list an equation yet, and I certainly don't presume you even know the difference between sand and shales. I also doubt you know anything about EROEI. I'll even bet that if challenged you will come back with another advocacy link, like that video, and when asked to defend it yourself, will change the subject. Your interest in being a parrot for the cause, while admirable, hardly does you credit. You already asked someone else about discoveries not replacing consumption and when EIA information can be used to demonstrate otherwise, you don't mention that particular point again. Hoping we'll forget are you?



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> You seem rather hopeless, for all your arrogance.



Of course I'm hopeless, from a parrots point of view. Parrots aren't designed to have conversations on a topic, all they can do is...parrot. You can't even DEFEND the idiot statements made by your sources, like I said, I won't even presume you know the difference between sand and shales. Take up a hobby....go read a book. Start with Oil Panic and The Global Crisis by Gorelick, it has footnotes and everything.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Thus, we get back to the irony of your post above. Do you have any idea what you're talking about at all on this topic?
> 
> Oh, and P.S.: Carter wasn't really wrong.... Neither was the 1970s report "Limits to Growth." ... Do better.... Mmm-kay, straw man champion?



Carter didn't base his running out in the 80's on the Limits to Growth. And of course Carter was wrong, do you know what the Fuel Use Act was? And why it proves Carter was wrong? Or isn't that Carter in Peaker U. either?

And if you can't do anything but parrot peaker dogma, I'm not about to explain the use of exponential growth in ANY model, and what a natural outcome to such modeling might be.


----------



## westwall

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would we occupy one of them for 10 years and not leave without taking all their oil? *And why would we invade the other which has none?* Certainly neither of these have anything to do with peak oil either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read slower next time. I mentioned oil transporting nations. Try absorbing a book since 1995 on the Caspian Basin. We've had designs on the TAPI for decades. The oil/gas kinda has to pass through Afghanistan, ... or at least, that was their plan before Chevron revised their Caspain reserve estimates... you know, downward ... again.
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know anything at all about this topic, or is the sort of "proof through innuendo" routine common in your peaker congregation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL... Irony, DUCY? About all you have is innuendo.
> 
> You danced around every passage, and ignored the ones you could not spin (the ASPO video). You're not fooling anyone here, Drebbin.
> 
> It's hysterical that you would dismiss the conclusions reached by our own Joint Chiefs and U.S. Dept of Energy as part of some vast conspiracy. A conspiracy you can't really bring yourself to flesh out, just that you're sure there is one. Too funny. All these entities are apparently lying and wrong. Gosh, who CAN we believe any more?
> 
> Your empty cartridge is most transparent in your shanked punt regarding the IEA question. Claiming unawares, and suggesting the International Energy Agency is somehow "undermanned" is painfully lame, and really exposing your weightless agenda here.
> 
> Denying or minimizing global peak production for years, the global energy watch dog finally gave in and acknowledged it all with their latest annual report, "World Energy Outlook 2010"
> 
> _"Crude oil output reaches an undulating plateau of around 68-69 mb/d, by 2020, but never regains its all-time peak of 70mb/d reached in 2006.
> _​The Oil Drum | IEA World Energy Outlook 2010 Now Out; a Preliminary Look
> 
> See the "never regains" part? The entire executive summary explains their conclusion, but there, in one sentence, the IEA has finally waved the white flag and admitted we are AT peak. Not coming soon, but AT peak. Period. ... All that follows after this plateau is the terminal decline of global light crude production, the stuff complex societies are utterly built upon. ... I'll let you scramble to "the Google" now to desperately try and discredit the IEA. Commence epic Fox Newslike spin in 10... 9... 8...
> 
> It's the light blue wedge on this graph where the burden falls on your camp. That is the "as yet unknown" capacity required, going forward, just to maintain statis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You guys don't really know where that gap is going to come from. All you think you know is what you hope will somehow emerge. Perhaps some vast field beneath the North Pole? Yah. ... Meanwhile, the yellow part? Sands and shale? Not nearly enough, and I'm pretty sure you know it.
> 
> As to your confusion regarding sands/shale belonging in the equation I put forth....  well, I'd bring be happy to engage in the topic of net energy, and the EROEI terminology that you dickishly pretend we don't understand .... but considering you seemingly can't make the basic distinction between the investment ratio of heavy and light crude, and it's affects on growth, I don't really see a point. You seem rather hopeless, for all your arrogance.
> 
> Thus, we get back to the irony of your post above. Do you have any idea what you're talking about at all on this topic?
> 
> Oh, and P.S.: Carter wasn't really wrong.... Neither was the 1970s report "Limits to Growth." ... Do better.... Mmm-kay, straw man champion?
Click to expand...





I hate to tell you Jiggs, but this is the definition of bloviating.  So answer the question, are RGR's numbers correct?


----------



## westwall

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read slower next time. I mentioned oil transporting nations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh. You mean...like a nation grows wheels...and...transports itself? Silly me, not understanding that one, can't say I've ever seen a nation doing this so my experience with them is limited.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jiggscasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About all you have is innuendo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that and past peaks, claims of peak decades ago, and countries which don't give a whit about Hubbert's method for NOT predicting their production rates. Its usually called "reality".
> 
> 
> 
> ASPO Utube videos as a reference? You do understand what footnotes are for don't you? And why scientists use them in peer reviewed science journals? And how ASPO video's don't have any? Do you even know what science is, or are you really so intellectually limited to think that a VIDEO is somehow relevant? Want me to put together a video saying peak is a religion, and posting it on utube? Then I can quote it as an authoritative reference? Will you believe me then, heck, I would have a video!
> 
> 
> 
> It's because I am aware of their history. The military was scared spitless of predicted peak back during WWI, you act like them doing this routine all over again is new to you. Why? Don't they teach basic history at Peaker Seminary? And you haven't provided the reference for the DOE position on peak oil...why not? You keep whining about everyone else needing references, and then you can't provide an easy, taxpayer funded and undoubtedly listed on a website somewhere one yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you surprised? We were at peak in 78/79, went on for more than a decade. So we've got another one? Or yet ANOTHER one in the future? Cool....think anyone will notice any of them either?
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I do that? Last year they said we were good to go until 2030. This year we're still good to go to 2035, you provided the information in your own graph. What are you whining about? Peak oil happened, yeah! Now bring on all the other stuff growing oil production to 2035. Certainly I'll take IEA's word for those volumes over a peaker any day of the week. Thanks for the graph.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure we do. Same place its been coming from for decades. Are you really this ignorant about where future oil supply comes from? Here's the next 30 or 40 years. Take a second, learn something.
> 
> JPT: The Next Trillion: Anticipating and Enabling Game-Changing Recoveries April06
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen you list an equation yet, and I certainly don't presume you even know the difference between sand and shales. I also doubt you know anything about EROEI. I'll even bet that if challenged you will come back with another advocacy link, like that video, and when asked to defend it yourself, will change the subject. Your interest in being a parrot for the cause, while admirable, hardly does you credit. You already asked someone else about discoveries not replacing consumption and when EIA information can be used to demonstrate otherwise, you don't mention that particular point again. Hoping we'll forget are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem rather hopeless, for all your arrogance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course I'm hopeless, from a parrots point of view. Parrots aren't designed to have conversations on a topic, all they can do is...parrot. You can't even DEFEND the idiot statements made by your sources, like I said, I won't even presume you know the difference between sand and shales. Take up a hobby....go read a book. Start with Oil Panic and The Global Crisis by Gorelick, it has footnotes and everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, we get back to the irony of your post above. Do you have any idea what you're talking about at all on this topic?
> 
> Oh, and P.S.: Carter wasn't really wrong.... Neither was the 1970s report "Limits to Growth." ... Do better.... Mmm-kay, straw man champion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Carter didn't base his running out in the 80's on the Limits to Growth. And of course Carter was wrong, do you know what the Fuel Use Act was? And why it proves Carter was wrong? Or isn't that Carter in Peaker U. either?
> 
> And if you can't do anything but parrot peaker dogma, I'm not about to explain the use of exponential growth in ANY model, and what a natural outcome to such modeling might be.
Click to expand...





  "footnotes and everything".  That was funny.  Of course I don't think Jiggs even knows what a "journal" is.  He'll no doubt reference the "Ladies Home Journal".


----------



## Mr. H.

You know how many barrels of oil it would take to reach the moon?





Just one- but it would have to be a big one.


----------



## RGR

westwall said:


> So answer the question, are RGR's numbers correct?




Sure they are...but he won't ever be able to admit it. See, it would violate one of the central dogmas of Doom. Peakers continually claim that to first produce oil, you have to find it, and then they flourish a graph which purports to show decreasing discoveries with respect to time. However, what they don't mention are two things the graph does immediately, 1) it hides the effect which has been supplying the world with new oil for decades now and 2) counts only a limited subset of the total oil humans have already found. 

Basically...its a rigged graph. Manipulated data. Rarely is it properly annotated. Here is one not properly annotated.






Notice how it doesn't mention that this is only a certain type of oil, with certain density and chemical properties, only in certain places. This is called "the hook". See the consumption, climbing? The discoveries, falling? What is the only conclusion we can draw from this, if we are ignorant, and take peakers at their word for using honest data?

OH NOES!!! THE END IS NIGH!!!

But those figures I posted earlier from the EIA were quite accurate. How can this be! someone might ask. Easy. The effect that this graph is hiding in the past is reserve growth. Each of those bars in the past gets higher, year over year. A little here, a little there. This effect is actually at LEAST as large in size as the new discoveries continuing forward, and as of late, even larger. This reserve growth was studied by Hubbert in his work starting in about 1967, and there is a great story by Larry Drew (another colleague of Hubbert who actually IS in the same game, unlike Deffeyes) in his book where Hubbert actually stopped one of his own publication's because he hadn't properly accounted for it in his projections. 

A little professional story, more than a few years ago there was a conference where someone got up and did a talk on reserve growth, and then another speaker got up and reeled off what I would call a "peaker lite" story, and when it came time for questions for the second speaker, the first question was..."But Mr Speaker, where in your talk did you account for the future additions to reserves from field growth?" and I swear the Peaker-Lite guy literally turned red in the face. He couldn't answer because, unlike Hubbert worrying about it 3 decades earlier and facing it honestly, this guy had simply blown it off. It irritated the crap out of him that the others in the room weren't going to let him get off with such a ridiculous hole in his story.

Anyway, the moral of the story is, this game the peakers are running is like claiming the world only has a 2 month supply of shoes...and then putting in the fine print....only if we count red ones, in ladies size 5.5, with no laces, and a small heel...oh yes...and if humans decide to never make any more again.


----------



## westwall

RGR said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So answer the question, are RGR's numbers correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they are...but he won't ever be able to admit it. See, it would violate one of the central dogmas of Doom. Peakers continually claim that to first produce oil, you have to find it, and then they flourish a graph which purports to show decreasing discoveries with respect to time. However, what they don't mention are two things the graph does immediately, 1) it hides the effect which has been supplying the world with new oil for decades now and 2) counts only a limited subset of the total oil humans have already found.
> 
> Basically...its a rigged graph. Manipulated data. Rarely is it properly annotated. Here is one not properly annotated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how it doesn't mention that this is only a certain type of oil, with certain density and chemical properties, only in certain places. This is called "the hook". See the consumption, climbing? The discoveries, falling? What is the only conclusion we can draw from this, if we are ignorant, and take peakers at their word for using honest data?
> 
> OH NOES!!! THE END IS NIGH!!!
> 
> But those figures I posted earlier from the EIA were quite accurate. How can this be! someone might ask. Easy. The effect that this graph is hiding in the past is reserve growth. Each of those bars in the past gets higher, year over year. A little here, a little there. This effect is actually at LEAST as large in size as the new discoveries continuing forward, and as of late, even larger. This reserve growth was studied by Hubbert in his work starting in about 1967, and there is a great story by Larry Drew (another colleague of Hubbert who actually IS in the same game, unlike Deffeyes) in his book where Hubbert actually stopped one of his own publication's because he hadn't properly accounted for it in his projections.
> 
> A little professional story, more than a few years ago there was a conference where someone got up and did a talk on reserve growth, and then another speaker got up and reeled off what I would call a "peaker lite" story, and when it came time for questions for the second speaker, the first question was..."But Mr Speaker, where in your talk did you account for the future additions to reserves from field growth?" and I swear the Peaker-Lite guy literally turned red in the face. He couldn't answer because, unlike Hubbert worrying about it 3 decades earlier and facing it honestly, this guy had simply blown it off. It irritated the crap out of him that the others in the room weren't going to let him get off with such a ridiculous hole in his story.
> 
> Anyway, the moral of the story is, this game the peakers are running is like claiming the world only has a 2 month supply of shoes...and then putting in the fine print....only if we count red ones, in ladies size 5.5, with no laces, and a small heel...oh yes...and if humans decide to never make any more again.
Click to expand...





Yes I know he won't answer truthfully but I want to give him the opportunity to answer, 'tis only fair.  And I had allready addressed the fact that only light sweet crude is considered for the peak BS which was to say the least disingenuous.


----------



## mdn2000

Notice how the Libtards barely post in energy, its harder for them to get away with their bullshit here. 

I bet if everyone quit posting for a few days the retards would show up and start a whole bunch of bullshit threads.


----------



## westwall

mdn2000 said:


> Notice how the Libtards barely post in energy, its harder for them to get away with their bullshit here.
> 
> I bet if everyone quit posting for a few days the retards would show up and start a whole bunch of bullshit threads.






That's their MO.


----------



## JiggsCasey

There is so much fail in your latest response, RGR, I hardly know where to begin. But it is clear your goal here is to just throw as many pins in the air for me to juggle, while dancing around the central question. 

The ultimate challenge put to you is "where is the oil, going forward?"

And your pathetic answer is "same place it's always been!"... Which is about as mature and intellectually honest as replying with "if it was up your ass, you'd know it," or "it's where you left it!"...  For all your blather, and your own denialist dogma, you are utterly unable to answer the question. That's because no one knows. 




RGR said:


> Oh. You mean...like a nation grows wheels...and...transports itself? Silly me, not understanding that one, can't say I've ever seen a nation doing this so my experience with them is limited.



You knew exactly what I was talking about - nations through which land-locked energy is transported. Unfortunately, it's a common practice of you to both feign ignorance in order to stall, AND proclaim intellectual superiority, simultaneously. 



RGR said:


> Well, that and past peaks, claims of peak decades ago, and countries which don't give a whit about Hubbert's method for NOT predicting their production rates. Its usually called "reality".



OK, well, I'll call your latest bullshit extrapolation bluff. Quantify that claim then. Link to what was actually said back then, by whom, about what? Global supply/demand shortfall? Or regional? Did it take into account exponential demand growth? Was the claim the exact same as today, or conditional? Most important, how much of the planet was explored back then compared to today, where the seismology reports have pretty much scoured the entire planet, and the USGS and IEA have a much firmer grasp of remaining global reserves?

If your argument simply rests upon "that's the way it's always been," you've already lost. Tell me, flat-earther: When 16th century ships kept getting lost at sea, was that further proof they fell off the edge of the world?



RGR said:


> ASPO Utube videos as a reference? You do understand what footnotes are for don't you? And why scientists use them in peer reviewed science journals? And how ASPO video's don't have any? Do you even know what science is, or are you really so intellectually limited to think that a VIDEO is somehow relevant? Want me to put together a video saying peak is a religion, and posting it on utube? Then I can quote it as an authoritative reference? Will you believe me then, heck, I would have a video



Also, your tactic of attempting to dismiss ASPO based on nothing, while ignoring the direct quote of the former chief geologist of British Petroleum in an ASPO interview is rather transparent. It's a little like saying "I was not convinced the markets were crashing in Sept. of '08, because I had to watch coverage of it on MSNBC."

Oops. You're gonna need to work a bit harder. Objecting to the production of the story is not the same as the source of the story. You understand how that works, do you not, junior Friedman? You're not countering what Jeremy Gilbert has said in the opening statement of that video, you're merely punting to "ASPO can't be trusted!".... LOL.

FAIL!

You're more than welcome to present a video denying peak. And I'll go ahead and focus on what they actually said, not my surface beef with the producers who interviewed them.

Here it is again, pumpkin. How are these industry insiders wrong or lying? Try to focus on what these independent sources say, not your pretentious narrative regarding ASPO.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUVY2qrEfd8[/ame]



RGR said:


> It's because I am aware of their history. *The military was scared spitless of predicted peak back during WWI*, you act like them doing this routine all over again is new to you. Why? Don't they teach basic history at Peaker Seminary?



Ok, again. Support that claim. In what context? Who in the military? Did they claim global shortfall of 10 million barrels per day within 5 years? Did they put out a report on the ramifications of such a condition? Somehow I doubt it, but far be it from you to extrapolate something you "heard" emanating from 95 years ago.

Regardless, here's what they are saying today, from the PDF provided before on the JOE:

"During the next twenty-five years, coal, oil, and natural gas will remain indispensable to meet energy requirements. *The discovery rate for new petroleum and gas fields over the past two decades (with the possible exception of Brazil) provides little reason for optimism that future efforts will find major new fields.*

At present, investment in oil production is only beginning to pick up, with the result that production could reach a prolonged plateau. By 2030, the world will require production of 118 MBD, but energy producers may only be producing 100 MBD unless there are major changes in current investment and drilling capacity. 

*By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 MBD.*​
Must just be baseless fear mongering by people in our military who don't understand geology as awesome as you claim to. 

_"Nothing to see here!!! Please!! Stand back!!"_



RGR said:


> And you haven't provided the reference for the DOE position on peak oil...why not? You keep whining about everyone else needing references, and then you can't provide an easy, taxpayer funded and undoubtedly listed on a website somewhere one yourself?



You're still kinda new here, so I'll forgive you for not having a clue of my post history, which includes several links to the U.S. Dept. of Energy's corroboration. Nevermind that a simple user search would give you the information you're pretending doesn't exist.

Do you prefer the Hirsch Report of 2005, or the more recent April 2009 DoE round-table, entitled &#8220;Meeting the Growing Demand for Liquid (fuels)?" (pdf)

Either way, here's a LeMonde story covering the issue. Undoubtedly, you'll find fault in LeMonde, and pretend the facts can't be trusted because it's LeMonde. It's what you guys do:

The DoE April 2009 round-table, untitled &#8220;Meeting the Growing Demand for Liquid (fuels)&#8220;, was semi-public. Yet it remained unnoticed and unjustly, as it put forward forecasts that are far more pessimistic than any analysis the DoE has ever delivered.

Page 8 of the presentation document of the round-table, a graph shows that *the DoE is expecting a decline of the total of all known sources of liquid fuels supplies after 2011.*
The graph labels as &#8220;unidentified&#8221; the additional supply projects needed to fill in a gap that is expected to grow after 2011 between rising demand and decline of known sources of supply that the DoE supposes will start that year. The declining production foreseen by the DoE concerns the total of existing sources of liquid fuels plus the new production projects that are supposed to come on-stream before 2012.

*The DoE predicts that the decline of identified sources of supply will be steady and sharp : - 2 percent a year, from 87 million barrels per day (Mbpd) in 2011 to just 80 Mbpd in 2015. At that time, the world demand for oil and other liquid fuels should have climbed up to 90 Mbpd, according to the presentation document.*
​
And here's the graph in question, the "as yet unidentified" future supply portion of which you punt to "it's where it's always been" emptiness. ...  






Now, surely, if you bother to read it, you'll cling to the passage in the story that offers a contingency that says this will come true "if investment is not there," which is what they have to say or face putting world markets into immediate panic. But with the world in perpetual recession, anyone being honest with themselves is well aware that the trillions in needed investment to maintain this growth is NOT there, and won't be.

Here's some more reading on the subject for you to pretend says something else, or merely can't be trusted:

Why The EIA?s Energy Outlook For 2010 Reveals Some Disturbing Figures



RGR said:


> Why are you surprised? We were at peak in 78/79, went on for more than a decade. So we've got another one? Or yet ANOTHER one in the future? Cool....think anyone will notice any of them either?



Straw man. Who said that? In what context? They said we were at global peak? Please link to where you're making your claim. I have little doubt it can easily be put into proper perspective, and NO DOUBT it's completely irrelevant to today's data.

"Limits to Growth" never gave a date for peak, only that is was coming. What some groups erroneously derived from "Limits to Growth" does not make that paper wrong in the least.

Do better.



RGR said:


> Why would I do that? Last year they said we were good to go until 2030. This year we're still good to go to 2035, you provided the information in your own graph. What are you whining about? Peak oil happened, yeah! Now bring on all the other stuff growing oil production to 2035. Certainly I'll take IEA's word for those volumes over a peaker any day of the week. Thanks for the graph.



LOL!!!! Are you sure you're reading it correctly, genius? How does it say we're "good to go" until 2035? Once again, what represents the light blue portion? Surely the IEA and Big Oil as a whole would love to hear from you. Unfortunately, you don't have an answer. Because no one knows. 

Hope is not a policy. Pragmatism is, based on known mathematics and geology. You claim you're such as esteemed analyst of geology, but when challenged to provide where the oil is going to come from going forward to fill that ever-expanding wedge, your awesome answer is: "where it's always been!"

EPIC FAIL.





RGR said:


> Sure we do. Same place its been coming from for decades.



Most of the places it's been "coming from for decades" are all in decline. This is not disputed. At least not by anyone with any data and weight behind their claim. You would know this if you watched the video of industry insiders saying so, including the chief consultant from Saudi-Aramco, the source of your denialist claim below.

The U.S., North Sea, Russia, Indonesia, Venezuela, Kuwait, Iran, and on and on and on. About the only major country claiming to have surplus production capacity is Saudi Arabia, and that's impossible to verify, considering they don't allow independent field analysis. But that won't stop you from resting your entire tired premise on their claims:



RGR said:


> Are you really this ignorant about where future oil supply comes from? Here's the next 30 or 40 years.
> 
> JPT: The Next Trillion: Anticipating and Enabling Game-Changing Recoveries April06



It's interesting that you would question ASPO, yet take Saudi Arabia's word as bond. Unlike you, I'm happy to list the many specific reasons your source sucks. Nevermind that your link forwards all inquiries to a Halliburton e-mail address. LOL.

Look at your link. You know, beyond the headline. ... What do you see there in their claim of some "next trillion?" Half of it is heavy, unconventional oil. The kind that is enormously expensive to extract and refine, and will NEVER sustain 5-7% growth, upon which the global economy must have to run in it's current form. Heck, he references the USGS survey from 10 years ago!!! FAIL!

In fact, from your own link, here's a wonderful passage that really puts your link of choice  in perspective:

_The point is not so much to argue for the veracity or the feasibility of these figures. Instead, the intent is to highlight vast possibilities..._​
Well, hooray for everything!! Let's just pull a figure out of our ass, and wonder at the possibilities! 

There are no hard figures here of proven reserves. Not even a comprehensive analysis of technically recoverable reserves.

What your link essentially says is: "Trust technology." ... But again, hope is not a policy. ... and tar sands will not save us. Neither will shale gas. The industry, knowing this day would come, has been trying to perfect unconventional oil production for decades, and have made about a 1-yard gain. Well, it's 4th-and-25, and goofy people like you insist an inside run is the way to go.

So, your essay there, by a Saudi-Aramco executive, comes from a company that has been telling the world "everything is fine" for 15 years, but their actions tell a different story from their press releases, altogether. They haven't proven they can ramp up production capacity, only claimed they can, and no one can see their data. Meanwhile, they're injecting sea water into their biggest fields in a desperate attempt to maintain pressure - the death knell of any field. They're also pouring investment into vastly-more-expensive offshore infrastructure (surely the sign of "plenty" of the abundant stuff onshore  )

Linking to the Saudis claiming "there's plenty" is about as convincing as the U.S. government investigating itself and announcing to its citizens "we found nothing nefarious."

In short, do better.



RGR said:


> Take a second, learn something.



Rich irony here, DUCY?



RGR said:


> I haven't seen you list an equation yet, and I certainly don't presume you even know the difference between sand and shales. I also doubt you know anything about EROEI.



Here you are, sunshine:








RGR said:


> I'll even bet that if challenged you will come back with another advocacy link, like that video, and when asked to defend it yourself, will change the subject.



That's a lot of pre-emptive guessing on your part. Based on how pathetic your earlier pap is, it's completely ineffectual. Punting to your guess of my grasp of EROEI is doing nothing for your flat refusal to quantify the central question.

Anyhow, "I'll play along," as you so arrogantly put it:

It's energy returned on energy invested. How much energy it costs to find, extract, refine and deliver that energy to market vs. how much energy is actually brought to market. It's a basic ratio figure that anyone can grasp, and no one needs to have an advanced physics degree, whatsoever, like you arrogantly act as if you have.

Light crude? The kind our empire is utterly built upon? That stuff returned anywhere from 200:1 down to 20:1 today.

Unconventional, heavy oils, the kind that you are squawking will save us all? About 2:1 or at best, 5:1. Now, how is that return going to maintain growth? That's right, it's not.

Here are the best known assessments of tar sands EROEI, and oops... it's not pretty:






But of course, if we listen to drones like you and select executives at Saudi-Aramco, the technology will be along any day now to improve those paltry figures. We need only invest and wait patiently 



RGR said:


> Your interest in being a parrot for the cause, while admirable, hardly does you credit.



Poetic irony here, DUCY?



RGR said:


> You already asked someone else about discoveries not replacing consumption and when EIA information can be used to demonstrate otherwise, you don't mention that particular point again. Hoping we'll forget are you?



That's because you've painfully straw manned my statement. You will not move the goalposts and demand I kick through it or else you "win." ...  LOL.... Tool.

What I said was discoveries are not keeping up with dying existing capacity. Not unless you can magically find a way to flat-line the exponential growth curve in demand. And even if you did manage to halt demand growth (via war, depression, disease, etc.), you've merely underlined the ramifications of peak, you have NOT refuted it.

It's interesting that your epic spin on that discoveries chart said nothing of demand growth going forward, which is ever expanding, like a snowball rolling down hill.

Hubbert said peak production comes roughly 40 years after peak discovery. That was the case for U.S. peak, that is the case for global peak. Discovery of global finds peaked in the mid 1960s. It is axiomatic, and in fact global production has flat-lined since 2004.

If you can show how global liquids production somehow _hasn't_ flatlined since roughly the middle of the last decade, I'd love to see how you're arriving at your figures.

I'm quite confident you can't.



RGR said:


> Of course I'm hopeless, from a parrots point of view. Parrots aren't designed to have conversations on a topic, all they can do is...parrot.



Witty. Spin it back, when clearly your argument is treading water badly, and represents nothing different from the legion of drones before you who also can't allude to where the energy is going to come from while maintaining necessary growth for the global economy that is dying before our very eyes.



RGR said:


> You can't even DEFEND the idiot statements made by your sources, like I said,



Actually, I defend every one of them. It's just that you change the game and yell "see!!!?" Grow up.



RGR said:


> I won't even presume you know the difference between sand and shales.



One yields bitumen, the other kerogen. Both have exceedingly slow flow rates, and are grossly expensive and no where near being economically viable. Nevermind their destructive affects on the environment, which ALSO factors into EROEI, even though you clowns wish to deny it.



RGR said:


> Take up a hobby....go read a book. Start with Oil Panic and The Global Crisis by Gorelick, it has footnotes and everything.



As does "Twilight in the Desert" by Simmons. I have little doubt I possess a far more versatile reading library on this subject matter than you do. 

Evidenced by your juvenile and empty response to the ultimate question, "it's where it's always been!!"



RGR said:


> Carter didn't base his running out in the 80's on the Limits to Growth. And of course Carter was wrong, do you know what the Fuel Use Act was? And why it proves Carter was wrong? Or isn't that Carter in Peaker U. either?



First, I'll need to you expand on what you believe Carter was wrong about. Surely, you'll take one sentence and extrapolate it to represent his overall premise, but I'm willing to take that challenge.

Overall, the man was quite correct. And you conceded it the moment you joined this forum. 
 No going backwards now.



RGR said:


> And if you can't do anything but parrot peaker dogma, I'm not about to explain the use of exponential growth in ANY model, and what a natural outcome to such modeling might be.



More irony. You've provided nothing but denialist dogma, and short-sighted graphs representing half the equation.

I have little doubt you'd fail regarding "exponential growth model" as well, spinning it into some convenient irrelevancy. You appear to be learning about this stuff as you go along, evidenced by your pathetic link to a Saudi-Aramco essay with a Halliburton email address.

You can run your mouth as long you want with personal insinuation that makes up some 90% of your material. The rest of your blather is nothing we haven't handled before by much better posters than you at ToD and CapitalHillBlue. But your central argument is both vague, and floundering.

To you, apparently, unconventional oil will somehow fill the gap and maintain stasis for complex societies, and/or technology will save the day. But every model provided by international energy monitoring entities (oops, not dogma) shows unconventional oil will represent no more than a tiny fraction of what is needed. More important, technological advances are painfully slow and require substantial investment. But peak is here now.

I'll give you the opportunity to man up and show once more, beyond "where it's always been!"

- If there's plenty of light crude, where is it going forward? What region? In what proven amount? Under land or deep water? How has the oil industry somehow "missed" this enormous new series of fields the past 100 years?

Or have you given up the light crude component of this debate? If you're now just retreating to the tar sands/shale gas/shale oil albatross, please say so. In fact, if you could even flesh out what you even mean overall, after conceding oil is a finite resource, that would be helpful. Hiding behind personal jabs of how dumb everyone is on our side of the fence is doing ZERO for your position here. 

Plenty of your allies have tried that already, and ultimately retreated from the forum.

Where is the oil for our 86 million barrel per day appetite? If everything is seamless as your guys insist, that appetite will soon be 95 million, 100 million, 110 million each and every day ... in OUR lifetime. Where is that going to come from?


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> Notice how it doesn't mention that this is only a certain type of oil, with certain density and chemical properties, only in certain places. This is called "the hook". See the consumption, climbing? The discoveries, falling? What is the only conclusion we can draw from this, if we are ignorant, and take peakers at their word for using honest data?
> 
> OH NOES!!! THE END IS NIGH!!!
> 
> But those figures I posted earlier from the EIA were quite accurate. How can this be! someone might ask. Easy. The effect that this graph is hiding in the past is reserve growth. Each of those bars in the past gets higher, year over year. A little here, a little there. This effect is actually at LEAST as large in size as the new discoveries continuing forward, and as of late, even larger. This reserve growth was studied by Hubbert in his work starting in about 1967, and there is a great story by Larry Drew (another colleague of Hubbert who actually IS in the same game, unlike Deffeyes) in his book where Hubbert actually stopped one of his own publication's because he hadn't properly accounted for it in his projections.



Again, the statement I made, straw man champion, was that current discoveries are not keeping up with demand needs amid existing dying capacity. 

But, reserve growth? Versus initial estimates of 20- 30-, 40 years ago? Seriously? This is about known current capacity, INCLUDING such reserve growth.

Any way you wanna slice it, even factoring in modest reserve growth, capacity is down:

_



			According to EIA's 2004 Annual Report on U.S. oil and natural gas reserves, the United States had 21.4 billion barrels of proved oil reserves as of December 31, 2004, the eleventh highest in the world. ... U.S. proven oil reserves have declined more than 17 percent since 1990, with the largest single-year decline (1.6 billion barrels) occurring in 1991.
The Oil Drum | Reserves Growth and Production Flows

Click to expand...

_

and 

_Reserves have declined more than 17% since 1990. In 2001, the EIA said that the US had 21.8 Gb of reserves and that reserves had declined 20% since 1990. Since we have produced about 6.148 Gb in the 2002 to end 2004 period and reserves differ by only 400 million barrels fewer, it appears that reserves have grown 5.748 Gb since 2001 while production has fallen from 5.746/mbd (2002) to 5.419/mbd (2004, cited above), a percentage drop of approximately 5.7%.

Citing reserves accounting (growth in Gb) and production flows (barrels per day) yields two different results. A final word about R/P ratios. If there is reserves growth that nearly covers production as in the 2002 to end 2004 period in our example just above, the R/P ratio is not a good indicator of what's going on. In 2001, reserves were 21.8 and the R/P ratio was 10.4. However, in 2004, reserves were 21.4 and the R/P ratio was 10.8. Reserves growth occurred, the R/P ratio went up and production dropped 5.7%. What's wrong with this picture?

In summary, this is why some of us regard production data as a more important indicator of problems in the oil supply than reserves accounting. Reserves growth can obscure production declines. Although the world may not have reached peak production yet,* it has been in a plateau since the spring of 2004.* This is a worrisome trend.
_​
Here's a bit more perspective on epically convenient "reserve growth," coolio. 

You'll pretend it's baseless, because it didn't come from Saudi-Aramco, but whatever:






First, OPEC countries &#8212; which include Iraq, Iran and Kuwait &#8212; are on the honor system when it comes to reporting their reserves. There is no independent audit to confirm whether their reported reserves are accurate or not.

Second, OPEC nations sell their oil according to quotas, which are based partially on their reported reserves. The more reserves a nation reports, the more oil it is allowed to sell. *This particular quota system went into effect in the 1980s, and almost immediately all OPEC nations&#8217; oil reserves jumped significantly. These nations have a direct, vested interest in exaggerating their reserves, not only to make more money, but because petroleum income directly translates into regional power.* The chart below is well known to those who follow peak oil issues, but everyone should be aware of how this works when OPEC countries start announcing big new finds or growth in existing reserves.​
No doubt, you're the kind of denialist who dotes on every word OPEC spews forth. You know, while conceding that oil is a finite resource. Just not now.


RGR said:


> A little professional story, more than a few years ago there was a conference where someone got up and did a talk on reserve growth, and then another speaker got up and reeled off what I would call a "peaker lite" story, and when it came time for questions for the second speaker, the first question was..."But Mr Speaker, where in your talk did you account for the future additions to reserves from field growth?" and I swear the Peaker-Lite guy literally turned red in the face. He couldn't answer because, unlike Hubbert worrying about it 3 decades earlier and facing it honestly, this guy had simply blown it off. It irritated the crap out of him that the others in the room weren't going to let him get off with such a ridiculous hole in his story.



Cool unfalsifiable story, bro. Someone somewhere at some conference couldn't talk about reserve growth? Who gives a shit? 

I'd be able to answer it. But it would be interesting to see you stammer all over yourself in response to "how much reserve growth has there even been?"



RGR said:


> Anyway, the moral of the story is, this game the peakers are running is like claiming the world only has a 2 month supply of shoes...and then putting in the fine print....only if we count red ones, in ladies size 5.5, with no laces, and a small heel...oh yes...and if humans decide to never make any more again.



Witty. Of course, the game you clowns are running is like insisting that everyone can afford the most EXPENSIVE of shoes, so there's really nothing to worry about and the shoe industry will be fine as a result.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> The ultimate challenge put to you is "where is the oil, going forward?"



New discoveries, field growth, unconventionals. Throw in some substitution, and we're good for a century or so. 

I'm not going to write a book in response to your rhetorical questions. Think you have a single valid point ANYWHERE in peaker mythology? Pick it. Make sure you can defend it without asking ridiculous rhetoricals. We'll start with one and see if you have more than 4 neurons firing through a synapse. If all you have is peaker mythology, give up now.

I will not reference homemade videos of peaker experts reciting mythology. I will not reference ASPO advocates except as examples about how little they know, and why they are position advocates and not scientists involved in resource depletion. I will use peer reviewed research and properly footnoted literature. I will not quote ex-cops, violin players, accountants, or other unqualified fruitloops. I am happy to explain or refute not only ex-cops, violin players, accountants and unqualified fruitloops, but Campbell, Laherrere, Deffeyes, Duncan, or even Hubbert's work.

I will not use the IHS database, domestic or international,or any proprietary data I possess.

But start with one, because keeping track of your ridiculous attempts to substitute quantity for quality won't fly. While I recognize that on the internet idiots win because they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience, you can play that game with others.


----------



## westwall

JiggsCasey said:


> There is so much fail in your latest response, RGR, I hardly know where to begin. But it is clear your goal here is to just throw as many pins in the air for me to juggle, while dancing around the central question.
> 
> The ultimate challenge put to you is "where is the oil, going forward?"
> 
> And your pathetic answer is "same place it's always been!"... Which is about as mature and intellectually honest as replying with "if it was up your ass, you'd know it," or "it's where you left it!"...  For all your blather, and your own denialist dogma, you are utterly unable to answer the question. That's because no one knows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh. You mean...like a nation grows wheels...and...transports itself? Silly me, not understanding that one, can't say I've ever seen a nation doing this so my experience with them is limited.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You knew exactly what I was talking about - nations through which land-locked energy is transported. Unfortunately, it's a common practice of you to both feign ignorance in order to stall, AND proclaim intellectual superiority, simultaneously.
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that and past peaks, claims of peak decades ago, and countries which don't give a whit about Hubbert's method for NOT predicting their production rates. Its usually called "reality".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, well, I'll call your latest bullshit extrapolation bluff. Quantify that claim then. Link to what was actually said back then, by whom, about what? Global supply/demand shortfall? Or regional? Did it take into account exponential demand growth? Was the claim the exact same as today, or conditional? Most important, how much of the planet was explored back then compared to today, where the seismology reports have pretty much scoured the entire planet, and the USGS and IEA have a much firmer grasp of remaining global reserves?
> 
> If your argument simply rests upon "that's the way it's always been," you've already lost. Tell me, flat-earther: When 16th century ships kept getting lost at sea, was that further proof they fell off the edge of the world?
> 
> 
> 
> Also, your tactic of attempting to dismiss ASPO based on nothing, while ignoring the direct quote of the former chief geologist of British Petroleum in an ASPO interview is rather transparent. It's a little like saying "I was not convinced the markets were crashing in Sept. of '08, because I had to watch coverage of it on MSNBC."
> 
> Oops. You're gonna need to work a bit harder. Objecting to the production of the story is not the same as the source of the story. You understand how that works, do you not, junior Friedman? You're not countering what Jeremy Gilbert has said in the opening statement of that video, you're merely punting to "ASPO can't be trusted!".... LOL.
> 
> FAIL!
> 
> You're more than welcome to present a video denying peak. And I'll go ahead and focus on what they actually said, not my surface beef with the producers who interviewed them.
> 
> Here it is again, pumpkin. How are these industry insiders wrong or lying? Try to focus on what these independent sources say, not your pretentious narrative regarding ASPO.
> 
> [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUVY2qrEfd8[/ame]
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, again. Support that claim. In what context? Who in the military? Did they claim global shortfall of 10 million barrels per day within 5 years? Did they put out a report on the ramifications of such a condition? Somehow I doubt it, but far be it from you to extrapolate something you "heard" emanating from 95 years ago.
> 
> Regardless, here's what they are saying today, from the PDF provided before on the JOE:
> 
> "During the next twenty-five years, coal, oil, and natural gas will remain indispensable to meet energy requirements. *The discovery rate for new petroleum and gas fields over the past two decades (with the possible exception of Brazil) provides little reason for optimism that future efforts will find major new fields.*
> 
> At present, investment in oil production is only beginning to pick up, with the result that production could reach a prolonged plateau. By 2030, the world will require production of 118 MBD, but energy producers may only be producing 100 MBD unless there are major changes in current investment and drilling capacity.
> 
> *By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 MBD.*​
> Must just be baseless fear mongering by people in our military who don't understand geology as awesome as you claim to.
> 
> _"Nothing to see here!!! Please!! Stand back!!"_
> 
> 
> 
> You're still kinda new here, so I'll forgive you for not having a clue of my post history, which includes several links to the U.S. Dept. of Energy's corroboration. Nevermind that a simple user search would give you the information you're pretending doesn't exist.
> 
> Do you prefer the Hirsch Report of 2005, or the more recent April 2009 DoE round-table, entitled Meeting the Growing Demand for Liquid (fuels)?" (pdf)
> 
> Either way, here's a LeMonde story covering the issue. Undoubtedly, you'll find fault in LeMonde, and pretend the facts can't be trusted because it's LeMonde. It's what you guys do:
> 
> The DoE April 2009 round-table, untitled Meeting the Growing Demand for Liquid (fuels), was semi-public. Yet it remained unnoticed and unjustly, as it put forward forecasts that are far more pessimistic than any analysis the DoE has ever delivered.
> 
> Page 8 of the presentation document of the round-table, a graph shows that *the DoE is expecting a decline of the total of all known sources of liquid fuels supplies after 2011.*
> The graph labels as unidentified the additional supply projects needed to fill in a gap that is expected to grow after 2011 between rising demand and decline of known sources of supply that the DoE supposes will start that year. The declining production foreseen by the DoE concerns the total of existing sources of liquid fuels plus the new production projects that are supposed to come on-stream before 2012.
> 
> *The DoE predicts that the decline of identified sources of supply will be steady and sharp : - 2 percent a year, from 87 million barrels per day (Mbpd) in 2011 to just 80 Mbpd in 2015. At that time, the world demand for oil and other liquid fuels should have climbed up to 90 Mbpd, according to the presentation document.*
> ​
> And here's the graph in question, the "as yet unidentified" future supply portion of which you punt to "it's where it's always been" emptiness. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, surely, if you bother to read it, you'll cling to the passage in the story that offers a contingency that says this will come true "if investment is not there," which is what they have to say or face putting world markets into immediate panic. But with the world in perpetual recession, anyone being honest with themselves is well aware that the trillions in needed investment to maintain this growth is NOT there, and won't be.
> 
> Here's some more reading on the subject for you to pretend says something else, or merely can't be trusted:
> 
> Why The EIA?s Energy Outlook For 2010 Reveals Some Disturbing Figures
> 
> 
> 
> Straw man. Who said that? In what context? They said we were at global peak? Please link to where you're making your claim. I have little doubt it can easily be put into proper perspective, and NO DOUBT it's completely irrelevant to today's data.
> 
> "Limits to Growth" never gave a date for peak, only that is was coming. What some groups erroneously derived from "Limits to Growth" does not make that paper wrong in the least.
> 
> Do better.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!!! Are you sure you're reading it correctly, genius? How does it say we're "good to go" until 2035? Once again, what represents the light blue portion? Surely the IEA and Big Oil as a whole would love to hear from you. Unfortunately, you don't have an answer. Because no one knows.
> 
> Hope is not a policy. Pragmatism is, based on known mathematics and geology. You claim you're such as esteemed analyst of geology, but when challenged to provide where the oil is going to come from going forward to fill that ever-expanding wedge, your awesome answer is: "where it's always been!"
> 
> EPIC FAIL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the places it's been "coming from for decades" are all in decline. This is not disputed. At least not by anyone with any data and weight behind their claim. You would know this if you watched the video of industry insiders saying so, including the chief consultant from Saudi-Aramco, the source of your denialist claim below.
> 
> The U.S., North Sea, Russia, Indonesia, Venezuela, Kuwait, Iran, and on and on and on. About the only major country claiming to have surplus production capacity is Saudi Arabia, and that's impossible to verify, considering they don't allow independent field analysis. But that won't stop you from resting your entire tired premise on their claims:
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting that you would question ASPO, yet take Saudi Arabia's word as bond. Unlike you, I'm happy to list the many specific reasons your source sucks. Nevermind that your link forwards all inquiries to a Halliburton e-mail address. LOL.
> 
> Look at your link. You know, beyond the headline. ... What do you see there in their claim of some "next trillion?" Half of it is heavy, unconventional oil. The kind that is enormously expensive to extract and refine, and will NEVER sustain 5-7% growth, upon which the global economy must have to run in it's current form. Heck, he references the USGS survey from 10 years ago!!! FAIL!
> 
> In fact, from your own link, here's a wonderful passage that really puts your link of choice  in perspective:
> 
> _The point is not so much to argue for the veracity or the feasibility of these figures. Instead, the intent is to highlight vast possibilities..._​
> Well, hooray for everything!! Let's just pull a figure out of our ass, and wonder at the possibilities!
> 
> There are no hard figures here of proven reserves. Not even a comprehensive analysis of technically recoverable reserves.
> 
> What your link essentially says is: "Trust technology." ... But again, hope is not a policy. ... and tar sands will not save us. Neither will shale gas. The industry, knowing this day would come, has been trying to perfect unconventional oil production for decades, and have made about a 1-yard gain. Well, it's 4th-and-25, and goofy people like you insist an inside run is the way to go.
> 
> So, your essay there, by a Saudi-Aramco executive, comes from a company that has been telling the world "everything is fine" for 15 years, but their actions tell a different story from their press releases, altogether. They haven't proven they can ramp up production capacity, only claimed they can, and no one can see their data. Meanwhile, they're injecting sea water into their biggest fields in a desperate attempt to maintain pressure - the death knell of any field. They're also pouring investment into vastly-more-expensive offshore infrastructure (surely the sign of "plenty" of the abundant stuff onshore  )
> 
> Linking to the Saudis claiming "there's plenty" is about as convincing as the U.S. government investigating itself and announcing to its citizens "we found nothing nefarious."
> 
> In short, do better.
> 
> 
> 
> Rich irony here, DUCY?
> 
> 
> 
> Here you are, sunshine:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lot of pre-emptive guessing on your part. Based on how pathetic your earlier pap is, it's completely ineffectual. Punting to your guess of my grasp of EROEI is doing nothing for your flat refusal to quantify the central question.
> 
> Anyhow, "I'll play along," as you so arrogantly put it:
> 
> It's energy returned on energy invested. How much energy it costs to find, extract, refine and deliver that energy to market vs. how much energy is actually brought to market. It's a basic ratio figure that anyone can grasp, and no one needs to have an advanced physics degree, whatsoever, like you arrogantly act as if you have.
> 
> Light crude? The kind our empire is utterly built upon? That stuff returned anywhere from 200:1 down to 20:1 today.
> 
> Unconventional, heavy oils, the kind that you are squawking will save us all? About 2:1 or at best, 5:1. Now, how is that return going to maintain growth? That's right, it's not.
> 
> Here are the best known assessments of tar sands EROEI, and oops... it's not pretty:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But of course, if we listen to drones like you and select executives at Saudi-Aramco, the technology will be along any day now to improve those paltry figures. We need only invest and wait patiently
> 
> 
> 
> Poetic irony here, DUCY?
> 
> 
> 
> That's because you've painfully straw manned my statement. You will not move the goalposts and demand I kick through it or else you "win." ...  LOL.... Tool.
> 
> What I said was discoveries are not keeping up with dying existing capacity. Not unless you can magically find a way to flat-line the exponential growth curve in demand. And even if you did manage to halt demand growth (via war, depression, disease, etc.), you've merely underlined the ramifications of peak, you have NOT refuted it.
> 
> It's interesting that your epic spin on that discoveries chart said nothing of demand growth going forward, which is ever expanding, like a snowball rolling down hill.
> 
> Hubbert said peak production comes roughly 40 years after peak discovery. That was the case for U.S. peak, that is the case for global peak. Discovery of global finds peaked in the mid 1960s. It is axiomatic, and in fact global production has flat-lined since 2004.
> 
> If you can show how global liquids production somehow _hasn't_ flatlined since roughly the middle of the last decade, I'd love to see how you're arriving at your figures.
> 
> I'm quite confident you can't.
> 
> 
> 
> Witty. Spin it back, when clearly your argument is treading water badly, and represents nothing different from the legion of drones before you who also can't allude to where the energy is going to come from while maintaining necessary growth for the global economy that is dying before our very eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I defend every one of them. It's just that you change the game and yell "see!!!?" Grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> One yields bitumen, the other kerogen. Both have exceedingly slow flow rates, and are grossly expensive and no where near being economically viable. Nevermind their destructive affects on the environment, which ALSO factors into EROEI, even though you clowns wish to deny it.
> 
> 
> 
> As does "Twilight in the Desert" by Simmons. I have little doubt I possess a far more versatile reading library on this subject matter than you do.
> 
> Evidenced by your juvenile and empty response to the ultimate question, "it's where it's always been!!"
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Carter didn't base his running out in the 80's on the Limits to Growth. And of course Carter was wrong, do you know what the Fuel Use Act was? And why it proves Carter was wrong? Or isn't that Carter in Peaker U. either?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, I'll need to you expand on what you believe Carter was wrong about. Surely, you'll take one sentence and extrapolate it to represent his overall premise, but I'm willing to take that challenge.
> 
> Overall, the man was quite correct. And you conceded it the moment you joined this forum.
> No going backwards now.
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if you can't do anything but parrot peaker dogma, I'm not about to explain the use of exponential growth in ANY model, and what a natural outcome to such modeling might be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More irony. You've provided nothing but denialist dogma, and short-sighted graphs representing half the equation.
> 
> I have little doubt you'd fail regarding "exponential growth model" as well, spinning it into some convenient irrelevancy. You appear to be learning about this stuff as you go along, evidenced by your pathetic link to a Saudi-Aramco essay with a Halliburton email address.
> 
> You can run your mouth as long you want with personal insinuation that makes up some 90% of your material. The rest of your blather is nothing we haven't handled before by much better posters than you at ToD and CapitalHillBlue. But your central argument is both vague, and floundering.
> 
> To you, apparently, unconventional oil will somehow fill the gap and maintain stasis for complex societies, and/or technology will save the day. But every model provided by international energy monitoring entities (oops, not dogma) shows unconventional oil will represent no more than a tiny fraction of what is needed. More important, technological advances are painfully slow and require substantial investment. But peak is here now.
> 
> I'll give you the opportunity to man up and show once more, beyond "where it's always been!"
> 
> - If there's plenty of light crude, where is it going forward? What region? In what proven amount? Under land or deep water? How has the oil industry somehow "missed" this enormous new series of fields the past 100 years?
> 
> Or have you given up the light crude component of this debate? If you're now just retreating to the tar sands/shale gas/shale oil albatross, please say so. In fact, if you could even flesh out what you even mean overall, after conceding oil is a finite resource, that would be helpful. Hiding behind personal jabs of how dumb everyone is on our side of the fence is doing ZERO for your position here.
> 
> Plenty of your allies have tried that already, and ultimately retreated from the forum.
> 
> Where is the oil for our 86 million barrel per day appetite? If everything is seamless as your guys insist, that appetite will soon be 95 million, 100 million, 110 million each and every day ... in OUR lifetime. Where is that going to come from?
Click to expand...






Is there actually a point in any of this crap?  BTW this is the DEFINITION of bloviating!


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ultimate challenge put to you is "where is the oil, going forward?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New discoveries, field growth, unconventionals. Throw in some substitution, and we're good for a century or so.
Click to expand...


Vague and unquantifiable much?

Where? How much field growth? How will "unconventionals" maintain global economic growth with an EROEI ratio of 3:1? Even if they expand production tomorrow, those new "unconventionals" won't be ready for 12-15 years.

"A century or so." LOL. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. If you said 20-30 years, I'd have at least met you half way. But to assert "we're good" for 100 years shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you're completely lost on the realities happening in the world regarding the global petroleum economy.



RGR said:


> I'm not going to write a book in response to your rhetorical questions. Think you have a single valid point ANYWHERE in peaker mythology? Pick it. Make sure you can defend it without asking ridiculous rhetoricals. We'll start with one and see if you have more than 4 neurons firing through a synapse. If all you have is peaker mythology, give up now.
> 
> I will not reference homemade videos of peaker experts reciting mythology. I will not reference ASPO advocates except as examples about how little they know, and why they are position advocates and not scientists involved in resource depletion. I will use peer reviewed research and properly footnoted literature. I will not quote ex-cops, violin players, accountants, or other unqualified fruitloops. I am happy to explain or refute not only ex-cops, violin players, accountants and unqualified fruitloops, but Campbell, Laherrere, Deffeyes, Duncan, or even Hubbert's work.
> 
> I will not use the IHS database, domestic or international,or any proprietary data I possess.
> 
> But start with one, because keeping track of your ridiculous attempts to substitute quantity for quality won't fly. While I recognize that on the internet idiots win because they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience, you can play that game with others.



Nice punt. You recognize it because you ARE the idiot engaging in the very tactic.

The first man in that video is the former chief petroleum geologist at one of the 3 biggest oil conglomerates in the world. When you pretended he's merely a "reciter of Mythology," I knew for sure you didn't have the slightest idea what you've been talking about this whole time.

I mean, besides admitting you're an arrogant prick. 

With 28 posts, mostly here, you clearly browsed the web, found this topic, and joined this site to tackle a subject so passionate for you - surface denial of basic Olduvai theory. What you found was a denialist camp here floundering to come up with answers for how peak is "wrong" or "not happening." So you stepped into the ring. 

Unfortunately, all you've shown in your arsenal is to conjure up a witty, yet fictional narrative of personal ridicule to assign to your opponents, and an ability to duck statistical data. Mature.

None of my central questions - which you're avoiding again - were rhetorical, liar. You were presented with very specific, falsifiable challenges. You were asked to qualify your ridiculous, unsupported statements, conflating viewpoints from 35 years ago with today.  And, most transparent of all, when I've responded to _your _challenges (such as the Dept. of Energy claim), you never follow up and instead pretend you can't be bothered, and hope it's forgotten. Clearly, "never give an inch" is your bull-headed strategy, even when you're shown the DoE's acknowledgment of imminent peak, which you deny ever happened. 

So, pick one? OK, ... The U.S. Dept. of Energy-sanctioned Hirsch Report -- clearly not "peaker mythology" ((whatever that is supposed to mean  )) -- is one big, fat valid point. 

The following esteemed individuals, which you're sure you're smarter than, are all convinced peak is here between 2006 and 2016:

- Ali Bakhitari, Oil Executive (Iran); 
- Matthew Simmons, Investment banker (U.S.)
- Chris Skrebowski, Petroleum journal editor (U.K.)
- Kenneth Deffeyes, Oil company geologist (ret., U.S.)
- David Goodstein, D. Vice Provost, Cal Tech (U.S.) 
- Colin Campbell, Oil geologist (ret., Ireland)
- Pang Xiongqi Petroleum Executive (China)
- J. Laherrere,  Oil geologist (ret., France) 

Other entities you're somehow smarter than include the Pentagon, U.S. Dept. of Energy, the IEA, Oxford Univ., Lloyd's of London, and the German and British governments.

How are they wrong? That's not a rhetorical question. I'd be delighted to hear your narrative for how all these entities, certain that peak is here, have it incorrect. And, are they lying, or just dumb? If they're lying, then for what purpose? If they're just dumb, why would our top military brass write a report based on their models?

As arrogant and confident as you try to portray, you should have no problem writing up a short essay refuting a condition you've already conceded in your first post about Hubbert.

If you like, just quantify two things: Reserve growth, and unconventional (low quality oil) production, going forward. How much can you show (not hope) there is?

We can discuss cost, timeline, demand pressures and logistical feasibility later. I'm merely asking how much you feel can be produced before, say, 2020 if investment is there (and it largely won't be).


----------



## JiggsCasey

westwall said:


> Is there actually a point in any of this crap?  BTW this is the DEFINITION of bloviating!



Notice you've been lapped many pages ago, and serve only as track obstruction now?


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to write a book in response to your rhetorical questions. Think you have a single valid point ANYWHERE in peaker mythology? Pick it. Make sure you can defend it without asking ridiculous rhetoricals. We'll start with one and see if you have more than 4 neurons firing through a synapse. If all you have is peaker mythology, give up now.
> 
> I will not reference homemade videos of peaker experts reciting mythology. I will not reference ASPO advocates except as examples about how little they know, and why they are position advocates and not scientists involved in resource depletion. I will use peer reviewed research and properly footnoted literature. I will not quote ex-cops, violin players, accountants, or other unqualified fruitloops. I am happy to explain or refute not only ex-cops, violin players, accountants and unqualified fruitloops, but Campbell, Laherrere, Deffeyes, Duncan, or even Hubbert's work.
> 
> I will not use the IHS database, domestic or international,or any proprietary data I possess.
> 
> But start with one, because keeping track of your ridiculous attempts to substitute quantity for quality won't fly. While I recognize that on the internet idiots win because they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience, you can play that game with others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, pick one? OK, ... The U.S. Dept. of Energy-sanctioned Hirsch Report -- clearly not "peaker mythology" ((whatever that is supposed to mean  )) -- is one big, fat valid point.
Click to expand...


What part of the Hirsch report would you like to discuss? Perhaps we can start with Hirsch's prediction of energy crisis...in 1987? I assume you are familiar with his history at seeing oil crisis around every corner?

Do you wish to discuss the similarities between his 1987 work and his 2005 DOE sponsored report (which is not the position of the DOE I might add)?

Or do you wish to focus on only the 2005 report and what he said in there that was reasonable, and unreasonable? You decide sometime today, and when I'm home this evening I will tackle any piece of it that you would like.


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> What part of the Hirsch report would you like to discuss?



Whatever you feel you can best spin. The ball is in your court, and you've countered with more rhetoric, and still zero data. I grow confident that you're hoping this exchange goes away.

You don't need me to steer the discussion any further. Here is your chance to distort the conclusions of Hirsch's report, and the best you can do is punt to 1987 and suggest the DoE doesn't necessarily agree.



RGR said:


> Perhaps we can start with Hirsch's prediction of energy crisis...in 1987? I assume you are familiar with his history at seeing oil crisis around every corner?



Enough with the pretentious posturing by way of vague rhetoricals. Just get on with it then. Qualify your assertion. You have plenty of rope now; Hang yourself with vague apples to oranges comparisons to 24 years ago. I can't wait.



RGR said:


> Do you wish to discuss the similarities between his 1987 work and his 2005 DOE sponsored report (which is not the position of the DOE I might add)?



Take your pick, spin-master. If the DoE objected, it would have disavowed the findings from a report it facilitated. Worse, if the DoE objected, why then do its officials follow up with corroboration?

Dept of Energy Acknowledges Possibility of Peak Oil Production After 2011 | HeatingOil.com

_In contrast to its official stance on a global production peak, comments by DOE secretary Glen Sweetnam in an exclusive interview demonstrate that the department is considering whether a swift and unexpected decline of oil supplies is close at hand._​
LOL. No, it's not "considering" ... It's softening the American public for a condition it's certain of by 2016.

_"Once maximum world oil production is reached, that level will be approximately maintained for several years thereafter, creating an undulating plateau. After this plateau period, production will experience a decline."_ - Lauren Mayne, DoE.​
Oops, production has been at that undulating plateau since 2004.

_"A chance exists that we may experience a decline [of world liquid fuels production between 2011 and 2015] if the investment is not there." - Glen Sweetnam, DoE, secretary _​
"A chance exists ... if" we don't pour money into it.  That's about as alarmist as a government official is allowed to get, especially after years of denying to the American people that the problem exists at all.



RGR said:


> Or do you wish to focus on only the 2005 report and what he said in there that was reasonable, and unreasonable? You decide sometime today, and when I'm home this evening I will tackle any piece of it that you would like.



You didn't need to wait, cool guy. I served you a softball, and you responded with obfuscation. 

Just the fact that the U.S. Dept. of Energy has *finally *acknowledged imminent peak speaks volumes, and it's going to be really tricky for you to maintain your Frank Drebbin routine in the wake of multiple statements, even if coded, by our own government, in lock step with the Pentagon, IEA, Oxford, Lloyd's, Total, ASPO, Post Carbon Institute, British and German governments, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Even if you do conjure up yet another new spin-tacular narrative regarding Hirsch that maintains the doubt platform that your disciples here are so desperate to cling to, you can not account for the fact that 1) world conventional production has flatlined for seven years while world demand continues to skyrocket, and 2) there have been no new finds of conventional crude in excess of 500 million barrels in 8 years anywhere on God's green Earth.

Reserve growth is vastly offset by OPEC and non-OPEC accounting gimmicks, and no one can show where the new oil is going to come from going forward. 

Unconventional oil will not save us. And despite your lame attempts to sneak piddly oil-from-dirt production totals into the overall equation, I'm quite confident you know sands/shale won't save us.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of the Hirsch report would you like to discuss?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever you feel you can best spin. The ball is in your court, and you've countered with more rhetoric, and still zero data. I grow confident that you're hoping this exchange goes away.
Click to expand...


Grow as confident as you would like. Its not like I'm scared of parrots. As per your request, here is where I wish to start.

http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/oil_peaking_netl.pdf

Hirsch, R.L., Bezdek, R., Wendling, R., 2005, Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation and Risk Management, NETL Publications at NETL Publications


Page 33, Section V. Hirsch complains that there is a dramatic example of the risks of over reliance on geological resources projections, as related to US natural gas. He goes on to say "The North American natural gas situation provides some useful lessons relevant to the peaking of conventional world oil production.

Page 36, under "Current Natural Gas Situation", he says in summary that "forecasts of a decade of high prices and shortages are credible." On that same page, he says, "If the experts were so wrong on their assessments of North American natural gas, are we really comfortable risking that the optimists are correct on world conventional oil production, which involves similar geologic and technological issues?"

Do you know what happened after that report was released Jiggs? Those geologic assessment people turned out to be RIGHT. Natural gas supplies from shale gas exploded, and cratered the price of natural gas.

In other words, those who used the geology to determine resources were correct, and those who made claims of shortages and prices increases, like Hirsch, are wrong.

By Hirsch's own words, he is wrong for the EXACT same reasons for conventional oil production. To whit, he ignores the geology. And now that the geology turns out to be an honest predictor of resource in his example, by extension it is also the best way to calculate future conventional oil resources. His argument, which he says doesn't work...except it does. He is incorrect, and has proven it himself. Geologic estimates trump his ridiculous triangles and trendology. 

Seems like a good place to start, and it reinforces a critical notion which must never be forgotten when dealing with Hirsch. You see, from Fort Worth in 2005 he could have thrown a rock from a tall building and hit a shale gas rig drilling nearby. He could have counted drilling rigs from a rental car with no more than a single trip to the area and a pencil and paper. Instead, he choose to ignore the geology, he ignored the activity which was being trumpeted from every office tower in Dallas/Fort Worth, and because he didn't even take the time to do some basic background work, now his report looks stupid. Its one thing to miss a future trend, quite another to ignore the one you can literally go out and put your hand on.

Feel free to parrot some peak mythology in his defense.


----------



## mdn2000

Jiggs is getting his butt kicked so bad I feel like changing sides and helping Jiggs but I only speak of things I know and have not the time to take on a new subject. 

Just rubbing it in. Its obvious one who attempts to learn from a cut and paste is at a severe disadvantage.


----------



## editec

Oddball said:


> oil gusher in California
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's so much oil oozing out of the ground in the Santa Barbara area, that you could strike a gusher if you chunked your approach shot at the local golf course.
> 
> But even _*propose*_ drilling more wells there and the granola heads would collectively poop themselves.
Click to expand...

 

FYI



> The Ellwood Oil Field contain*ed *approximately 106 million barrels of oil, almost all of which has been removed, to the degree possible with the technology available until the early 1970s.
> 
> The field now has been abandoned.
> 
> The *South Ellwood Offshore field*, on the other hand, has been *estimated by the U.S. Department of Energy to hold over one billion barrels of oi*l [3] *and approximately 2.1 billion barrels by Venoco, Inc.,* most of which is in the undeveloped portion of the field.[4]
> 
> In 1995, *the Oil and Gas Journal reported 155 million barrels of proven reserves*.[5]
> 
> 
> Oil from the Ellwood field was generally light and sweet, with an API gravity averaging 38 and low sulfur content (making it "sweet" in petroleum parlance). Oil from the offshore field is medium-grade, ranging from API gravity 25 to 34, and has a higher sulfur content, requiring more processing than the oil from the decommissioned onshore field.
> 
> 
> Several pools have been identified in the South Ellwood Offshore field, in three major vertical zones. The upper Monterey Formation contains a large pool in a zone of fractured shale at an average depth of 3,350 feet (1,020 m) below the ocean floor. Beneath that, a separate pool exists in the Rincon Sand, 5,000 feet (1,500 m) below the ocean floor, and yet another in the Vaqueros Formation at a depth of 5,900 feet (1,800 m). The deepest well drilled to date is 6,490 feet (1,980 m) into the Rincon Formation: age and strata information are still company-confidential to Venoco, the current operator.


 
source

I find it more than just a tad confusing how estimates regarding the reserves can be so wildly different.

Three different organziations give us three different estimates: 

1 billion, 2.1 billion or 155 million?  

Now what's a layman supposed to think when the ranges of estimates are so wildly different?

So while you EXPERTS here are debating the PEAK OIL issue, I cannot help but wonder how YOU GUYS decide which expert to believe.

How DO you decide who YOU believe?


----------



## RGR

mdn2000 said:


> Jiggs is getting his butt kicked so bad I feel like changing sides and helping Jiggs but I only speak of things I know and have not the time to take on a new subject.
> 
> Just rubbing it in. Its obvious one who attempts to learn from a cut and paste is at a severe disadvantage.



Thou Shalt Not Be Afraid of Parrots.


----------



## RGR

editec said:


> I find it more than just a tad confusing how estimates regarding the reserves can be so wildly different.



Humans do not like uncertainty. Engineers are designed to give you an answer down to 3 significant digits. 

Reserves are all about the future. Take all the information you have as of today (and when today IS matters as well) and cast your idea down the road. The correct way to express that answer would be with a histogram, and technically, proven SEC reserves are supposed to be a fractile pull from that histogram. In any case, the day after you calculate these "reserves", the price of oil doubles the next day, and you are now wrong. It drops in half, and you are wrong again. By definition, any single reserve number only represents a single fractile guess into the overall histogram.

Thought of like that, "reserves" are by definition wildly different. Those of us who do them simply don't show the full histograms when asked the question, "How much will this well/field make?"



			
				editec said:
			
		

> Now what's a layman supposed to think when the ranges of estimates are so wildly different?



The layman becomes confused, because he/she doesn't know how these reserves are calculated. A peaker assumes its a conspiracy. 3 engineers know it happened because they each have their own way of dealing with the geologic, economic, and reservoir uncertainty involved.



			
				editec said:
			
		

> So while you EXPERTS here are debating the PEAK OIL issue, I cannot help but wonder how YOU GUYS decide which expert to believe.
> 
> How DO you decide who YOU believe?



We ask questions to establish a basis. What method was used to calculate these reserves? Analogs, material balance, decline curves, reservoir modeling and matching, in-place estimates with an assumed recovery factor method, where did all the information to create this estimate come from (well logs, core samples, seismic, geologic arm waving at similar rock, production) and was it accurately assembled.  

And then guess what? We are happy if two independent calculations come within 50% of each other, at least until our sources of information have improved as the well/field is developed.

No one said this is easy, certainly peakers miss the nuance altogether in a rush to backstop their religious beliefs. Uncertainty has always been there, it just isn't as visible as some of us would like. Realizing of course that the instant I report my reserves as a histogram, I catch all kinds of flak from investors and accountants who are very deterministic in their own worlds.


----------



## westwall

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of the Hirsch report would you like to discuss?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever you feel you can best spin. The ball is in your court, and you've countered with more rhetoric, and still zero data. I grow confident that you're hoping this exchange goes away.
> 
> You don't need me to steer the discussion any further. Here is your chance to distort the conclusions of Hirsch's report, and the best you can do is punt to 1987 and suggest the DoE doesn't necessarily agree.
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps we can start with Hirsch's prediction of energy crisis...in 1987? I assume you are familiar with his history at seeing oil crisis around every corner?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Enough with the pretentious posturing by way of vague rhetoricals. Just get on with it then. Qualify your assertion. You have plenty of rope now; Hang yourself with vague apples to oranges comparisons to 24 years ago. I can't wait.
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you wish to discuss the similarities between his 1987 work and his 2005 DOE sponsored report (which is not the position of the DOE I might add)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take your pick, spin-master. If the DoE objected, it would have disavowed the findings from a report it facilitated. Worse, if the DoE objected, why then do its officials follow up with corroboration?
> 
> Dept of Energy Acknowledges Possibility of Peak Oil Production After 2011 | HeatingOil.com
> 
> _In contrast to its official stance on a global production peak, comments by DOE secretary Glen Sweetnam in an exclusive interview demonstrate that the department is considering whether a swift and unexpected decline of oil supplies is close at hand._​
> LOL. No, it's not "considering" ... It's softening the American public for a condition it's certain of by 2016.
> 
> _"Once maximum world oil production is reached, that level will be approximately maintained for several years thereafter, creating an undulating plateau. After this plateau period, production will experience a decline."_ - Lauren Mayne, DoE.​
> Oops, production has been at that undulating plateau since 2004.
> 
> _"A chance exists that we may experience a decline [of world liquid fuels production between 2011 and 2015] if the investment is not there." - Glen Sweetnam, DoE, secretary _​
> "A chance exists ... if" we don't pour money into it.  That's about as alarmist as a government official is allowed to get, especially after years of denying to the American people that the problem exists at all.
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or do you wish to focus on only the 2005 report and what he said in there that was reasonable, and unreasonable? You decide sometime today, and when I'm home this evening I will tackle any piece of it that you would like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't need to wait, cool guy. I served you a softball, and you responded with obfuscation.
> 
> Just the fact that the U.S. Dept. of Energy has *finally *acknowledged imminent peak speaks volumes, and it's going to be really tricky for you to maintain your Frank Drebbin routine in the wake of multiple statements, even if coded, by our own government, in lock step with the Pentagon, IEA, Oxford, Lloyd's, Total, ASPO, Post Carbon Institute, British and German governments, etc. etc. etc. etc.
> 
> Even if you do conjure up yet another new spin-tacular narrative regarding Hirsch that maintains the doubt platform that your disciples here are so desperate to cling to, you can not account for the fact that 1) world conventional production has flatlined for seven years while world demand continues to skyrocket, and 2) there have been no new finds of conventional crude in excess of 500 million barrels in 8 years anywhere on God's green Earth.
> 
> Reserve growth is vastly offset by OPEC and non-OPEC accounting gimmicks, and no one can show where the new oil is going to come from going forward.
> 
> Unconventional oil will not save us. And despite your lame attempts to sneak piddly oil-from-dirt production totals into the overall equation, I'm quite confident you know sands/shale won't save us.
Click to expand...







But, but, but....didn't you tell us that we had hit peak oil long ago?  Didn't you say Hubbert had made the prediction and it was validated years ago?  And here you link to a report that says we might hit it after 2011?  So which is it maximum bloviator?


----------



## Old Rocks

Dumb ass, we hit the Hubert peak for the US in 1971, right on schedule. And how much has the rate of production increased in the last few years?


----------



## westwall

Old Rocks said:


> Dumb ass, we hit the Hubert peak for the US in 1971, right on schedule. And how much has the rate of production increased in the last few years?






Yeah so?  Jiggy baby said the world hit peak a few years ago and now here is a DOE report that says the world may hit Peak in 2015 or 2016.  That's what I was referring to.  
Why you enjoy mens asses however, is beyond me


----------



## RGR

Old Rocks said:


> Dumb ass, we hit the Hubert peak for the US in 1971, right on schedule. And how much has the rate of production increased in the last few years?



Hubbert predicted 2 different peaks for the US oil production. He came close to one of them.He also predicted peak natural gas for about the same time period. It peaked right when he said it would, and began its inevitable decline. Until the early 80's. Then it started growing again. And then some more. And then some more. And nearly 40 years after the FIRST American Hubbert peak in natural gas, we got another!!

So I ask...how many peaks does Hubbert's method allow, do ya think? And how far apart can they be? Saudi Arabia peaked back in the early 80's I believe, the peak of the worlds largest producing country bothered you much in 3 decades? 

US crude oil production was up about 8% in 2009, over 2008. EIA doesn't have annuals out for 2010 yet.


----------



## KissMy

Government Regulations created the peak that coincided with Hubert's peak BS for the US in 1971.

If you can't sink an oil drill when, where & however you please like here in the USA then the government is restricting production. Just look at how the government, EPA, unions & regulators nearly prevented the Alaska pipeline from being completed. If the oil companies had been allowed to install 2 pipelines there would have been a second much higher peak in the 1980s. With all the government games, regs, leasing fees & restrictions it has become far cheaper to import our oil than produce it domestically which is why our production has declined & imports have risen.

Next thing these idiots will tell us is we hit peak clothing & shoes in the USA because our production dropped off & we import most of them from China. Wow we must have hit peak manufacturing in the USA.

Government plays games with the little libtards heads & they fall for it every time. These crooks create a bunch of money & steal it. Then 16 months later we get hit with inflation driving up commodity prices. The government political spin control convinces the population that a shortage, weather, catastrophe or hazardous pollution controls had to be imposed & this is why prices went up. Never ever will they tell the truth that all the money they printed a year or two ago is now causing the huge price rise.


----------



## Bones

Seven billion people (and growing) on Earth  + the increasing use of the automobile in densely populated nations (i.e. India, China) + oil being a finite resource + the world relying on oil in order for their complex civilizations to function = inevitable disaster.

The population growth isn't going to miraculously slow down (until it hits a brick wall at top speed); alternatives to fossil fuel will be/are too little, too late; there is _not_ enough oil in the United States to keep up with the incredible amount required for daily consumption (18,690,000 barrels per day)

Let's repeat that.  *18,690,000 barrels of oil per day*

Such usage, by the United States and worldwide, is unsustainable.


----------



## KissMy

In the 1920s, oil prices were peaking and many commentators believed that oil supplies were running out. 



> In *1919* the director of the U.S. Bureau of Mines predicted that "within the next two to five years the oil fields of this country will reach their maximum production, and from that time on we will face an ever-increasing decline."
> 
> *That same year*, National Geographic magazine predicted that oil shales in Colorado and Utah would be exploited to produce oil, because the demand for oil could not be met by existing production.
> 
> In *January 1920*, Dr. George Otis Smith, Director of the United States Geological Survey, in commenting upon our oil supply stated: "The position of the United States in regard to oil can best be characterized as precarious."
> 
> In *May 1920*, Dr. Smith said: "Americans will have to depend on foreign sources or use less oil, or perhaps both.
> 
> In *1920*, David White, of the United States Geological Survey, stated: "On the whole, therefore, we must expect that, unless our consumption is checked, we shall by 1925 be dependent on foreign oil fields to the extent of 150,000,000 barrels and possibly as much as 200,000,000 of crude each year, except insofar as the situation may at that time, perhaps, be helped to a slight extent by shale oil. Add to this probability that within 5 years--perhaps 3 years only--our domestic production will begin to fall off with increasing rapidity, due to the exhaustion of our reserves"



Congress was confronted by requests to augment supplies, so it enacted a generous depletion allowance for producers in 1926, which increased investment returns substantially. This change induced additional exploration activity, and subsequently the discovery of large new oil reservoirs.

Beginning in the late-1920s, different groups in the oil industry proposed policy measures to help prop up prices. Initially, the major oil companies supported industry planning similar to that used during World War l. The war experience left many corporate leaders favorably disposed toward managed capitalism under the protection of the state.

During the next decade, the situation was reversed, with prices low and dropping. That led to demands for more orderly competition and oil price supports. Rather than repealing the supply-enhancement policies enacted during the 1920s, Congress left them intact and enacted a price-support system. Similar cycles occurred in the 1950s and 1970s. In each case, Congress enacted policies that overreacted to the current peak or trough and failed to quickly repeal the policies when petroleum prices retreated from their extreme highs or lows.


----------



## RGR

Bones said:


> Seven billion people (and growing) on Earth  + the increasing use of the automobile in densely populated nations (i.e. India, China) + oil being a finite resource + the world relying on oil in order for their complex civilizations to function = inevitable disaster.



Malthus claimed population disaster more than 2 centuries ago. While I'm sure recycling really old, really stupid ideas makes fine sense to peakers, please don't assume the rest of us are so enRaptured in your religious perspective.



			
				Bones said:
			
		

> The population growth isn't going to miraculously slow down (until it hits a brick wall at top speed); alternatives to fossil fuel will be/are too little, too late; there is _not_ enough oil in the United States to keep up with the incredible amount required for daily consumption (18,690,000 barrels per day)
> 
> Let's repeat that.  *18,690,000 barrels of oil per day*



I assume the fascination with big numbers is because no one ever taught you Avogadro's constant, and the way scientists write it down so as not to scare ignorant peakers? 



			
				Bones said:
			
		

> Such usage, by the United States and worldwide, is unsustainable.



The solar system in its entirety is unsustainable. And just like the use of oil, will outlive both you, and the dogma of peak oil.


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of the Hirsch report would you like to discuss?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever you feel you can best spin. The ball is in your court, and you've countered with more rhetoric, and still zero data. I grow confident that you're hoping this exchange goes away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Grow as confident as you would like. Its not like I'm scared of parrots. As per your request, here is where I wish to start.
> 
> http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/oil_peaking_netl.pdf
> 
> Hirsch, R.L., Bezdek, R., Wendling, R., 2005, Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation and Risk Management, NETL Publications at NETL Publications
> 
> 
> Page 33, Section V. Hirsch complains that there is a dramatic example of the risks of over reliance on geological resources projections, as related to US natural gas. He goes on to say "The North American natural gas situation provides some useful lessons relevant to the peaking of conventional world oil production.
> 
> Page 36, under "Current Natural Gas Situation", he says in summary that "forecasts of a decade of high prices and shortages are credible." On that same page, he says, "If the experts were so wrong on their assessments of North American natural gas, are we really comfortable risking that the optimists are correct on world conventional oil production, which involves similar geologic and technological issues?"
> 
> Do you know what happened after that report was released Jiggs? Those geologic assessment people turned out to be RIGHT. Natural gas supplies from shale gas exploded, and cratered the price of natural gas.
> 
> In other words, those who used the geology to determine resources were correct, and those who made claims of shortages and prices increases, like Hirsch, are wrong.
> 
> By Hirsch's own words, he is wrong for the EXACT same reasons for conventional oil production. To whit, he ignores the geology. And now that the geology turns out to be an honest predictor of resource in his example, by extension it is also the best way to calculate future conventional oil resources. His argument, which he says doesn't work...except it does. He is incorrect, and has proven it himself. Geologic estimates trump his ridiculous triangles and trendology.
> 
> Seems like a good place to start, and it reinforces a critical notion which must never be forgotten when dealing with Hirsch. You see, from Fort Worth in 2005 he could have thrown a rock from a tall building and hit a shale gas rig drilling nearby. He could have counted drilling rigs from a rental car with no more than a single trip to the area and a pencil and paper. Instead, he choose to ignore the geology, he ignored the activity which was being trumpeted from every office tower in Dallas/Fort Worth, and because he didn't even take the time to do some basic background work, now his report looks stupid. Its one thing to miss a future trend, quite another to ignore the one you can literally go out and put your hand on.
> 
> Feel free to parrot some peak mythology in his defense.
Click to expand...


wait, did you just punt to shale gas? 

Seriously, before I respond...  I'm not confident I understood some of your rambling above, so I just need to be clear: Are you essentially saying that Hirsh's report is wrong because it didn't account for shale gas innovation?

If so, how much shale gas production do you think takes place currently? About how much do you feel the shale gas industry can expand in say, the next 5 years? Please be honest.

If you're attempting to conflate shale gas with light sweet crude, it's beyond evident that you're completely lost on the core question of this debate.


----------



## JiggsCasey

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb ass, we hit the Hubert peak for the US in 1971, right on schedule. And how much has the rate of production increased in the last few years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah so?  Jiggy baby said the world hit peak a few years ago and now here is a DOE report that says the world may hit Peak in 2015 or 2016.  That's what I was referring to.
> Why you enjoy mens asses however, is beyond me
Click to expand...


What? That's not what the DoE says, fraud. This is pretty much why you've become irrelevant to this discussion and are largely ignored now. ... It says if investment isn't there, a 10 million barrel per day shortfall between supply and demand by 2015 is likely. Do you have any idea what that means for complex societies completely reliant on future growth?

Peak is here now. We are at the plateau and have been since 2004, barely avoiding decline due to desperate and exhaustive unconventional oil and deep sea production and Iraq dislocation. Period.  You're pretending the decline point = peak. Peak is peak, decline comes after peak. Try and follow along.

It's full-bore production DECLINE that hasn't yet begun, .... and it's that aggregate production DECLINE that the DoE, IEA, Pentagon, Oxford, Lloyds, Total, and many others have recently (in unison) warned is coming in the next 5-10 years. If the world gets to a demand climate that calls for 95 million barrels per day, and world industry can only still provide 85 million barrels, what do you think that results in? Say, at best, we get to 105 million demand vs. 95 million supply?


----------



## westwall

JiggsCasey said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb ass, we hit the Hubert peak for the US in 1971, right on schedule. And how much has the rate of production increased in the last few years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah so?  Jiggy baby said the world hit peak a few years ago and now here is a DOE report that says the world may hit Peak in 2015 or 2016.  That's what I was referring to.
> Why you enjoy mens asses however, is beyond me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? That's not what the DoE says, fraud. This is pretty much why you've become irrelevant to this discussion and are largely ignored now. ... It says if investment isn't there, a 10 million barrel per day shortfall between supply and demand by 2015 is likely. Do you have any idea what that means for complex societies completely reliant on future growth?
> 
> Peak is here now. We are at the plateau and have been since 2004, barely avoiding decline due to desperate and exhaustive unconventional oil and deep sea production and Iraq dislocation. Period.  You're pretending the decline point = peak. Peak is peak, decline comes after peak. Try and follow along.
> 
> It's full-bore production DECLINE that hasn't yet begun, .... and it's that aggregate production DECLINE that the DoE, IEA, Pentagon, Oxford, Lloyds, Total, and many others have recently (in unison) warned is coming in the next 5-10 years. If the world gets to a demand climate that calls for 95 million barrels per day, and world industry can only still provide 85 million barrels, what do you think that results in? Say, at best, we get to 105 million demand vs. 95 million supply?
Click to expand...





You are correct I am pretty irrelevant to this discussion, RGR hands you your ass every time you open your mouth.  Keep going though it's amusing to see you flail away.


----------



## JiggsCasey

westwall said:


> You are correct I am pretty irrelevant to this discussion, RGR hands you your ass every time you open your mouth.  Keep going though it's amusing to see you flail away.



He does? How? About what? And don't punt to "all of it." 

Try and give an answer this time to the specific point or points you feel he's "ass handing" about. 

Let's see how you're actually following the discussion. 

You're irrelevant because you have no real answers. Not because someone else has picked up the baton and tried a new slant in your stead. 

Ah well. By your silence, at least you know you lied about what the DoE actually said.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> wait, did you just punt to shale gas?



If you do not have the intellectual wherewithall to tackle the topic and document you allowed me to choose, just say so.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Seriously, before I respond...  I'm not confident I understood some of your rambling above, so I just need to be clear: Are you essentially saying that Hirsh's report is wrong because it didn't account for shale gas innovation?



No. I am not. Do you understand what geology is the study of? Do you understand what trendology is? Do you know the difference between using either of these methods to make an estimate about the future?

This is the report you requested. 



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> If so, how much shale gas production do you think takes place currently? About how much do you feel the shale gas industry can expand in say, the next 5 years? Please be honest.



It is not "If so", therefore please try and stick to the topic you requested. And the report. All you have to do is think for yourself. I realize this does not come naturally to peakers, but you should try.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> If you're attempting to conflate shale gas with light sweet crude, it's beyond evident that you're completely lost on the core question of this debate.



The only incompetents who confuse oil types are peakers who don't know what oil is in their desire to count only some of it.

I used your report to make a specific point. If my references to YOUR report were too complex, ask a second grader to help you look up the big words in a dictionary. I would be more than happy to clarify any specific issues you might have with Hirsch's poor logic if you just let me know which ones you are having trouble with.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> Peak is here now.



Peak has been here before. It may very well be here again.

If Stuarts graphs are correct, we may be having yet ANOTHER one even as we speak.

The Oil Drum | New High of Liquid Fuel Production

How many peaks does it take before we have one that matters?




			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> It's full-bore production DECLINE that hasn't yet begun, .... and it's that aggregate production DECLINE that the DoE, IEA, Pentagon, Oxford, Lloyds, Total, and many others have recently (in unison) warned is coming in the next 5-10 years.



Would you like to reference anything specific in THOSE reports which I can refute for you? Or is this your MO? Organizations just like those were saying the same things in the 19th century. Can you validate the current reports by telling us what they are doing differently than the ones written before you were born saying the same basic thing?

Why aren't you referencing the esteemed organizations saying we were running out in a few years? In 1920? Does that scientific reference not fit your agenda to scare people now? Or is this yet another case of peakers not training you parrots properly before casting you out into the world to scare people? They should teach you a little bit of history first.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct I am pretty irrelevant to this discussion, RGR hands you your ass every time you open your mouth.  Keep going though it's amusing to see you flail away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He does? How? About what? And don't punt to "all of it."
Click to expand...



Are you kidding? You pick a reference, and when a single point from it is used to dissemble the validity of the report you can't even respond without trying to change the topic to something else.

Do you actually READ any of these things you throw around as "sources"?

*Edited*

Do you even realize how predictable you are? Can't you at least come up with something original in the Dogma of Doom routine you guys try and foist off on the unsuspecting?



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Try and give an answer this time to the specific point or points you feel he's "ass handing" about.



Try and read the Hirsch report, and UNDERSTAND it, prior to pretending it supports your case rather than refutes it.


----------



## westwall

JiggsCasey said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct I am pretty irrelevant to this discussion, RGR hands you your ass every time you open your mouth.  Keep going though it's amusing to see you flail away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He does? How? About what? And don't punt to "all of it."
> 
> Try and give an answer this time to the specific point or points you feel he's "ass handing" about.
> 
> Let's see how you're actually following the discussion.
> 
> You're irrelevant because you have no real answers. Not because someone else has picked up the baton and tried a new slant in your stead.
> 
> Ah well. By your silence, at least you know you lied about what the DoE actually said.
Click to expand...









Well, the only person carrying on a discussion is RGR.  His conversation I am following quite well.  Clearly you are far out of your depth and can't follow a single point he's made.
I asked you to address the history of peak oil prediction at the very beginning of your bloviating and you never answered those simple basic questions.  He has made the point again and once again you have danced around the subject so I will make it simple for you so that even my four year old could understand it...which means it is at the 2nd grade level, she's fairly advanced....so here it is...are you ready for it?

There have been multiple peaks in the history of oil production.  What makes you think that this is "the one"?  What evidence do you have to support it?  And why do you peakers only use light sweet crude as the "only source of oil" when that is the rarest of the types pulled from the ground?


----------



## westwall

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct I am pretty irrelevant to this discussion, RGR hands you your ass every time you open your mouth.  Keep going though it's amusing to see you flail away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He does? How? About what? And don't punt to "all of it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you kidding? You pick a reference, and when a single point from it is used to dissemble the validity of the report you can't even respond without trying to change the topic to something else.
> 
> Do you actually READ any of these things you throw around as "sources"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jiggsys Routine Broken Down So Everyone Has the Cliff Notes Version said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh..the so and so organization said <insert misrepresentation here> and so of course its peak and we're all gonna die! THE END IS NIGH! OH NOES!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you even realize how predictable you are? Can't you at least come up with something original in the Dogma of Doom routine you guys try and foist off on the unsuspecting?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try and give an answer this time to the specific point or points you feel he's "ass handing" about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try and read the Hirsch report, and UNDERSTAND it, prior to pretending it supports your case rather than refutes it.
Click to expand...





I think Jiggs has been smoking to much ganja and no longer has the capacity to understand the subject.  He is, as you say, reduced to the level of a myna bird....repeating what he hears but in no way understanding it.  Sad.


----------



## RGR

westwall said:


> I think Jiggs has been smoking to much ganja and no longer has the capacity to understand the subject.  He is, as you say, reduced to the level of a myna bird....repeating what he hears but in no way understanding it.  Sad.



Peakers have several standard precepts built into their religion, which they cast onto the waters as bait.

1) We have been consuming more than we produce for a long time.
2) Oil is the only substance of consequence in the human universe.
3) Hubbert invented a predictive method and it worked.

None of them are true without some artificial context or manipulation of the data to force the answer in only the direction they have predetermined to be acceptable. 

I don't know WHY they do it, other than the obvious psychological need to prove that if they were dumb enough to fall for it, at least they aren't alone in the world.


----------



## westwall

RGR said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Jiggs has been smoking to much ganja and no longer has the capacity to understand the subject.  He is, as you say, reduced to the level of a myna bird....repeating what he hears but in no way understanding it.  Sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peakers have several standard precepts built into their religion, which they cast onto the waters as bait.
> 
> 1) We have been consuming more than we produce for a long time.
> 2) Oil is the only substance of consequence in the human universe.
> 3) Hubbert invented a predictive method and it worked.
> 
> None of them are true without some artificial context or manipulation of the data to force the answer in only the direction they have predetermined to be acceptable.
> 
> I don't know WHY they do it, other than the obvious psychological need to prove that if they were dumb enough to fall for it, at least they aren't alone in the world.
Click to expand...





I think that the vast majority of people who follow modern catastrophism if I may be so bold to use that august term, are wrapped around the axle of these things because it makes them feel important.  They don't really produce much if anything, and they are too smart to actually attend school and get an advanced degree, and mommy and daddy allways told them how smart they were so they actually believe it.  But now as they get older and all the dullards are making more money and having enjoyable fullfilling lives they just can't stand it.  So they adopt the "world is ending" mantra and try to convince everyone that they are the only ones who can understand it all.

Kind of like climatologists.


----------



## JiggsCasey

westwall said:


> I think that the vast majority of people who follow modern catastrophism if I may be so bold to use that august term, are wrapped around the axle of these things because it makes them feel important.  They don't really produce much if anything, and they are too smart to actually attend school and get an advanced degree, and mommy and daddy allways told them how smart they were so they actually believe it.  But now as they get older and all the dullards are making more money and having enjoyable fullfilling lives they just can't stand it.  So they adopt the "world is ending" mantra and try to convince everyone that they are the only ones who can understand it all.
> 
> Kind of like climatologists.



LOL. Cool story, bro'. 

The most transparent reason you're completely out of bullets is that you've punted on the data, and have resorted to 100% hopeful guesswork concerning the education level of your opponent.

FAIL.

When you're done creating straw man, I'll be over here waiting for you to explain how shale and/or sands will provide the same that light crude does, or better, where the new pools of light crude actually IS going forward.. Still waiting.

Until you man up, and actually engage in the debate, and stop relying on nothing but ineffectual trolling, you remain painfully irrelevant to the discussion. Perhaps you and your new hero here, RGR, can point to a new location of low grade uranium in shale, or pretend that Prudhoe Bay contains "centuries of oil!"

We don't want this reality. It's just that we're not in denial about it like you guys are. We recognize symptoms. You guys, however, act like blood in the toilet, re-occuring seizures, and headaches don't require a doctor's visit.

Unfortunately, less and less people buy your nonsense with each passing month. And that enrages you all. Because then you'd actually have to confront the problem you've been arrogantly denying for years. You have too much invested in your narrative to ever go back now. THAT is what we enjoy, not the condition.


----------



## westwall

JiggsCasey said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the vast majority of people who follow modern catastrophism if I may be so bold to use that august term, are wrapped around the axle of these things because it makes them feel important.  They don't really produce much if anything, and they are too smart to actually attend school and get an advanced degree, and mommy and daddy allways told them how smart they were so they actually believe it.  But now as they get older and all the dullards are making more money and having enjoyable fullfilling lives they just can't stand it.  So they adopt the "world is ending" mantra and try to convince everyone that they are the only ones who can understand it all.
> 
> Kind of like climatologists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. Cool story, bro'.
> 
> The most transparent reason you're completely out of bullets is that you've punted on the data, and have resorted to 100% hopeful guesswork concerning the education level of your opponent.
> 
> FAIL.
> 
> When you're done creating straw man, I'll be over here waiting for you to explain how shale and/or sands will provide the same that light crude does, or better, where the new pools of light crude actually IS going forward.. Still waiting.
> 
> Until you man up, and actually engage in the debate, and stop relying on nothing but ineffectual trolling, you remain painfully irrelevant to the discussion. Perhaps you and your new hero here, RGR, can point to a new location of low grade uranium in shale, or pretend that Prudhoe Bay contains "centuries of oil!"
> 
> We don't want this reality. It's just that we're not in denial about it like you guys are. We recognize symptoms. You guys, however, act like blood in the toilet, re-occuring seizures, and headaches don't require a doctor's visit.
> 
> Unfortunately, less and less people buy your nonsense with each passing month. And that enrages you all. Because then you'd actually have to confront the problem you've been arrogantly denying for years. You have too much invested in your narrative to ever go back now. THAT is what we enjoy, not the condition.
Click to expand...





The problem with your argument jiggy, is it pre-supposes a worldview that is not supported by fact.  You live in a cause and effect world now.  Religion of your ilk has been supplanted.  When you decide to enter into the modern world feel free to participate, right at this moment you have nothing.  Nothing at all.  And, you're now just getting boring.  I don't like boring.


----------



## JiggsCasey

westwall said:


> The problem with your argument jiggy, is it pre-supposes a worldview that is not supported by fact.



What the fuck are you talking about, desperate poster? My entire argument drowns you in fact. If world liquids production has somehow NOT flatlined since 2004-2005, please show how that pre-supposes anything.



westwall said:


> You live in a cause and effect world now.  Religion of your ilk has been supplanted.  When you decide to enter into the modern world feel free to participate, right at this moment you have nothing.  Nothing at all.  And, you're now just getting boring.  I don't like boring.



Could you be more empty? "Right at this moment," I've been slapping you around with everything from your irrelevant Thomas Gold abiotic punt to heavy vs. conventional oil comparison. You don't know what you're talking about, and your vague, hollow narrative is the very DEFINITION of boring.

YOU are the one who has nothing, cool guy. Make no mistake about that.


----------



## westwall

JiggsCasey said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your argument jiggy, is it pre-supposes a worldview that is not supported by fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about, desperate poster? My entire argument drowns you in fact. If world liquids production has somehow NOT flatlined since 2004-2005, please show how that pre-supposes anything.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You live in a cause and effect world now.  Religion of your ilk has been supplanted.  When you decide to enter into the modern world feel free to participate, right at this moment you have nothing.  Nothing at all.  And, you're now just getting boring.  I don't like boring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could you be more empty? "Right at this moment," I've been slapping you around with everything from your irrelevant Thomas Gold abiotic punt to heavy vs. conventional oil comparison. You don't know what you're talking about, and your vague, hollow narrative is the very DEFINITION of boring.
> 
> YOU are the one who has nothing, cool guy. Make no mistake about that.
Click to expand...






  Sure dreamer, whatever you say.


----------



## JiggsCasey

westwall said:


> Sure dreamer, whatever you say.



Emotes and short quips of projection. It's official. You have nothing left.

You have no answer for the fact that liquid fuels production has been flat for 7 years. Oops.

Run along.


----------



## westwall

QUOTE=JiggsCasey;3228951]





westwall said:


> Sure dreamer, whatever you say.



Emotes and short quips of projection. It's official. You have nothing left.

You have no answer for the fact that liquid fuels production has been flat for 7 years. Oops.

Run along.[/QUOTE]




Sure jiggy baby, sure!


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> What the fuck are you talking about, desperate poster? My entire argument drowns you in fact.



Refute my explanation of the Hirsch's report.

I dare you. Try out one of these new found facts which we haven't seen in action yet. Heck, pick a fact, just one, and we'll see if it's a fact or just another assertion/speculation/arm-waving exercise.

Do you even know what a fact IS?


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> You have no answer for the fact that liquid fuels production has been flat for 7 years. Oops.
> 
> Run along.



Oh...is THAT all you want refuted? Will you go away if we peak...yet again?

Early Warning: Prospects for a New Peak in Crude & Condensate


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no answer for the fact that liquid fuels production has been flat for 7 years. Oops.
> 
> Run along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...is THAT all you want refuted? Will you go away if we peak...yet again?
> 
> Early Warning: Prospects for a New Peak in Crude & Condensate
Click to expand...


LOL. Leave it to you to FAIL to recognize what that graph shows. It's a post that refers to monthly fluctuation, not annual averages. Leave it to you to point at one month in one year and squawk "see?!! see!? a new peak!!!" that's barely quantifiable over the course of 6 years. Tool. Look at the EIA portion (green line) of this graph. The end EIA line is exactly where it was in 2005.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7327

Get back to me when you can show a pattern of production growth of any significance since late 2005. Peak began then, and continues today. It's called "the bumpy plateau," and it's well established.

All you're doing is ignoring the long term trend (which is quite flat) and flapping your parrot wings over short-term blips that have more to do with storage capacity fluctuation and geopolitical conditions than any new upturn in global liquids production.

Anyhow, sunshine... Here's the central graph by the EIA, the very same entity you're desperately trying to pass off as somehow saying the opposite:






Note the tan, blue and red portions all sliding downward. Ooops. Unfortunately, that white wedge is the part that your camp has to account for, and are failing miserably.  But that's OK... The Pentagon and U.S. Dept of Energy don't have any idea where that's going to come from either, so you're not alone.

That enough "fact" for ya? GFY


----------



## westwall

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about, desperate poster? My entire argument drowns you in fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Refute my explanation of the Hirsch's report.
> 
> I dare you. Try out one of these new found facts which we haven't seen in action yet. Heck, pick a fact, just one, and we'll see if it's a fact or just another assertion/speculation/arm-waving exercise.
> 
> Do you even know what a fact IS?
Click to expand...





Demonstrably no.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no answer for the fact that liquid fuels production has been flat for 7 years. Oops.
> 
> Run along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...is THAT all you want refuted? Will you go away if we peak...yet again?
> 
> Early Warning: Prospects for a New Peak in Crude & Condensate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL. Leave it to you to FAIL to recognize what that graph shows. It's a post that refers to monthly fluctuation, not annual averages.
Click to expand...


You were no more specific in your question about how YOU define peak than clear in what density of oil you will, or won't,  count. 

I recommend going back, asking the Priests what you are supposed to think, and come back and tell us that. Undoubtedly they are more capable in understanding the basics.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> It's called "the bumpy plateau," and it's well established.



Please reference any work by Hubbert where he converted his peak concept into a "bumpy plateau" concept. Just one will do. Show us all how he imagined this bumpy plateau would work? Redeem yourself from past moronic statements and assertions which can't survive even a cursory examination...here is your chance to SHINE!



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> The Pentagon and U.S. Dept of Energy don't have any idea where that's going to come from either, so you're not alone.
> 
> That enough "fact" for ya? GFY



What is "fact" is that you continue to claim that the DOE said something, and when I walk you through what the DOE Hirsch report actually SAYS, it doesn't back up your "Santa Claus / Oil" assertions. 

Stop creating appeals to authority which don't say what you claim. Or, better yet, show us the part of the report which backstops your position. If you can.


----------



## mdn2000

Another Oil Discovery, I guess that is good news for some of us.

New Oil Discovery Reported in Southern England - Yahoo! Finance



> LONDON, Jan. 18, 2011 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Alamo Energy Corp. (OTCBB:ALME - News) is pleased to report that a new oil discovery reported by BBC confirms Alamo Energy's strategy and expansive pursuit of nearby oil and gas prospect in Southern England





> For Alamo Energy, this latest local discovery provides added belief that the company is on the right course on its own nearby Wessex / Weald Province oil lease in southern England. This lease contains 4 onshore license blocks with a total oil-resource potential up to 236 million barrels. BP, Nexen Energy and Star Energy, a subsidiary of Petronas are among the growing number of major producers pursuing development leases in this new rapidly emerging oil and gas region


----------



## JiggsCasey

I'm away for a week, and this is what you respond with? More squawking about your shale gas punt regarding the Hirsch Report, coupled with pretentious posturing and "you're dumb" ineffectual ridicule? FAIL!



RGR said:


> You were no more specific in your question about how YOU define peak than clear in what density of oil you will, or won't,  count.



Actually, I've been quite specific. Contrary to you flat-earthers, peak does not have to be a specific date set in stone. A ballpark assessment is plenty adequate. One need merely to take a look at total liquids production over a period of 10-15 years to see, unequivocally, that liquids have essentially flat-lined for the past 6 years, with some short blips up and down along that 6-year axis.

To the encyclopedia's definition, peak is the point at which world light crude production reaches its highest point before terminal decline. Whether it plateaus for 1 hour, or 10 years, isn't really the point -- because longterm decline is all that follows.

The more refined definition of peak is the general price point at which (harder to reach) energy becomes too expensive for investment and consumption, and thus, impossible to maintain growth. The ramifications of that end of growth ARE the residuals of peak. When one recognizes that demand can be crushed with raised prices, thereby extending (or flattening) Hubbert's curve, he hasn't debunked peak at all, he has simply underscored it.

That is what we are seeing today, as the price of just about everything rises WITH the price of oil.  Or, did you want to dispute that fact as well, in your never-ending snake oil ploy to remain obtuse, despite joining this forum by admitting it's a finite resource?

You can't go back on that assertion now. You didn't deny peak, you simply insisted it wasn't here "yet." Hopefully, your loyal disciples here remember that fact, especially the idiots who still insist that oil is abiotic.



RGR said:


> I recommend going back, asking the Priests what you are supposed to think, and come back and tell us that. Undoubtedly they are more capable in understanding the basics.



Look at you. So adorable, maintaining the charade due to belligerence, while your argument crumbles all around you. Keeping swimming upstream, little salmon. You'll get there.

Richard Heinberg is no priest. Neither is Michael T. Klare, Dr. Albert Bartlett, Chris Martenson, Chris Skrebowski, Jeremy Leggett, Saddad al-Husseini, Jim Buckee or Jeremy Gilbert. ... Oops, wrong again, flat eather.  In fact, they're all either former Big Oil CEOs, chief petroleum engineers, or energy/economy analysts, no doubt far more informed than your pretentious nay-saying ass.



RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's called "the bumpy plateau," and it's well established.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please reference any work by Hubbert where he converted his peak concept into a "bumpy plateau" concept. Just one will do. Show us all how he imagined this bumpy plateau would work? Redeem yourself from past moronic statements and assertions which can't survive even a cursory examination...here is your chance to SHINE!
Click to expand...


Straw man creatiion 2.0!! Here, I'll be a perpetual douche like you: Please reference where I suggested that term comes from Hubbert!!! Just one will do. You won't find it, and you know you won't, but far be it from the latest ass clown to make up claims of claims of the other side.

His raw model has been refined. Despite your desperate attempts to pigeon hole every aspect of this debate, no one on our side of the discussion has asserted that every specific angle of Hubbert's model has held up 100%. That's YOUR desperate straw man.

Ultimately, Hubbert's theory is correct, even if the apex of the curve has flattened slightly due to slowed demand growth and very expensive alternatives.



RGR said:


> What is "fact" is that you continue to claim that the DOE said something, and when I walk you through what the DOE Hirsch report actually SAYS, it doesn't back up your "Santa Claus / Oil" assertions.



Nice side-step. You didn't "walk" me through anything. You merely punted to shale gas as evidence that Hirsch report was flawed. Then, when challenged to acknowledge shale gas capacity so far in this country, you couldn't, and continued the "you're just dumb" litigation. LOL....  FAIL!

The DoE not only funded and facilitated the Hirsch report, which insists peak is here by 2015, it also is represented by longtime peak denier Glenn Sweetnam's assessment: 

_The U.S. Department of Energy admits that &#8220;a chance exists that we may experience a decline&#8221; of world liquid fuels production between 2011 and 2015 &#8220;if the investment is not there&#8221;, according to an exclusive interview with Glen Sweetnam, main official expert on oil market in the Obama administration._​
Gosh, here's the DoE's 2009 round table discussion report, chaired by Sweetnam above. Note page 8!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.eia.doe.gov/conference/2009/session3/Sweetnam.pdf

But nah... The DoE isn't SAYING peak is here, it's JUST saying it's not here if we invest the necessary trillions in maintaining the doomed fossil fuel addiction! LOL!

Washington considers a decline of world oil production as of 2011 - Oil Man - Blog LeMonde.fr

_Glen Sweetnam&#8217;s warning comes after a long set of warnings dealing with possible troubles ahead on the supply side of the world oil market. Those warnings have been emitted over the last years through a range of sound sources such as The Wall Street Journal, The Houston Chronicle (main daily newspaper of the world capital of crude oil trade), the CEO of Brazilian oil company Petrobras, a former n°2 of Saudi national oil company Aramco, an International Energy Agency &#8216;whistleblower&#8217;, the chief economist of the IEA himself, the UK Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil & Energy Security, or legendary-wildcatter-turned-renewable-tycoon T. Boone Pickens._​


RGR said:


> Stop creating appeals to authority which don't say what you claim. Or, better yet, show us the part of the report which backstops your position. If you can.



LOL!!! Such a dick.

It's telling watching you desperately attempt to keep me from citing sources you can't spin. Oops, not gonna happen.  Unfortunately for your floundering position, "authority" on this topic is almost entirely in my camp, not yours, flat-earther. Not only is authority on my side, but so are world events -- everything from food riots to full-blown revolutions.

Watching the events unfolding in Egypt, are ya? Yeah...Guess what? It conveniently coincides with Egypt's growing oil consumption finally colliding with declining oil output. ... That's not "made up" either, that's assessed from BP's own statistical data. Food subsidies become kinda hard to maintain when you suddenly haveta increase oil subsidies. Get it yet?






Look, RGR. If all you have left in your BB-gun arsenal is to pretend the Hirsch Report is wrong due to shale gas, assert that we somehow adhere to every word of Hubbert's model, and embark on long pretentious narratives of personal insinuation that make you look really insecure, you lose badly. Oh, I forgot... You still have plenty of "reserve growth" claims.

Your entire argument here is like saying Joe Torre was never worthy of being a manager because he could never throw a curve ball. LOL.

Now, I'm sure you'll fire back with another unctuous rant about how I'm a "parrot" and don't know anything, cherry-picking what you can spin while ignoring the main rebuttals... That's to be expected... But I'm going to keep my boot on your throat on a few main contentions, and hopefully you'll man up and respond one of these times:

- How much annual gas from shale has the U.S. successfully produced so far? 
- When comparing different energy sources, what is a better measurement for relative energy efficiency than basic EROEI, and why do the following entites and individuals continue to use this "useless" measurement? (tar sands, in this example)


----------



## JiggsCasey

mdn2000 said:


> Another Oil Discovery, I guess that is good news for some of us.



Hooray! Four days of energy found!!!


----------



## Synthaholic

uscitizen said:


> Buy your Peak Oil at Amazon.com


Spend $25 and it ships free!


----------



## mdn2000

JiggsCasey said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another Oil Discovery, I guess that is good news for some of us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hooray! Four days of energy found!!!
Click to expand...


Another bold faced lie, expected, how about Israel's recent discoveries as well as the recent discoveries in Egypt, Egypt will now export energy. The opposite of what you post. How about a Microsoft paint type graph, I cannot argue with those, Jiggs.


----------



## JiggsCasey

mdn2000 said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another Oil Discovery, I guess that is good news for some of us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hooray! Four days of energy found!!!
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another bold faced lie, expected, how about Israel's recent discoveries as well as the recent discoveries in Egypt, Egypt will now export energy. The opposite of what you post. How about a Microsoft paint type graph, I cannot argue with those, Jiggs.
Click to expand...


Dude, your own fucking link said 200 something million barrels in England. Don't blow a gasket when I remind the forum that the world uses 86 million barrels every single day. Perspective, denial monk. Gain some.

It doesn't matter, though, drama queen. You can link to a new "find" like that each and every day. Total them up, and they won't compare to the rate of dying existing capacity. ... To say nothing of the cost to build new infrastructure at each of these piddly little kiddie pools you arrogantly declare victory over. LOL.

Brazil's ultra-deep water "finds" have been put into proper perspective. If you wanna support your Egypt claim, man up and link.

Again, I can claim I've found 5000 years of crude on the moon. But if it bankrupts my company trying to get to it, doesn't really mean much, does it?


----------



## mdn2000

JiggsCasey said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hooray! Four days of energy found!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another bold faced lie, expected, how about Israel's recent discoveries as well as the recent discoveries in Egypt, Egypt will now export energy. The opposite of what you post. How about a Microsoft paint type graph, I cannot argue with those, Jiggs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, your own fucking link said 200 something million barrels in England. Don't blow a gasket when I remind the forum that the world uses 86 million barrels every single day. Perspective, denial monk. Gain some.
> 
> It doesn't matter, though, drama queen. You can link to a new "find" like that each and every day. Total them up, and they won't compare to the rate of dying existing capacity. ... To say nothing of the cost to build new infrastructure at each of these piddly little kiddie pools you arrogantly declare victory over. LOL.
> 
> Brazil's ultra-deep water "finds" have been put into proper perspective. If you wanna support your Egypt claim, man up and link.
> 
> Again, I can claim I've found 5000 years of crude on the moon. But if it bankrupts my company trying to get to it, doesn't really mean much, does it?
Click to expand...


Blow a gasket, get a grip, Jiggs, I think I may have to send Old Red out there to extinquish that fire of yours. Drama queen? Denial Monk?

He, I am sorry, actually not, that your getting your ass kicked up and down the posts. 

Build new infrastructure? 

Gee, what exactly do you do for a living, bury your head in the sand.

Four days of oil that will take the next 40 years to pump out of the ground, economics and profits say it is worth pumping oil from one well for 40 years or more, Jiggs claims its not, based on a man that was educated before computers were invented. By a guy who had to rething everything that Hubbert ever learned.

Of course Jiggs, your biggest failure in my eyes is your continued refusal to post the theory your such an expert in, I forget, where exactly did you post that PDF of the actual theory of peak oil instead of a tertiary source of little detail, at best?


----------



## Mr. H.

I'd be overjoyed with a 2 bbl/day well.

$170/day... $5,000/month... less 12.5% royalty... less 30% lifting costs =  about $3,000/month.
$36k a year (Only $28,000 of it taxable if you figure depletion allowance).

Not too shabby.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> I'm away for a week, and this is what you respond with? More squawking about your shale gas punt regarding the Hirsch Report,



Hirsch's ignorance of shale gas is not what discredits his report. His ignorance of a geologic basis is. Try reading what I wrote instead of filling in whatever gibberish is closest to hand.



			
				Jiggscasey said:
			
		

> Actually, I've been quite specific.



Actually you haven't. You haven't referenced a single word from Hirsch, or anyone else, wrote to rebutt what I wrote.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> To the encyclopedia's definition, peak is the point at which world light crude production reaches
> its highest point before terminal decline.



From idiots who wrote the peak oil wiki....

"Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction is reached, 
after which the rate of production enters terminal decline."

Would you care to revise your claims of what the encyclopedia says, or stick with your even more ignorant definition of peak oil than Wiki has?



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Richard Heinberg is no priest. Neither is Michael T. Klare, Dr. Albert Bartlett, Chris Martenson,
> Chris Skrebowski, Jeremy Leggett, Saddad al-Husseini, Jim Buckee or Jeremy Gilbert....



Do you realize that you lump actual industry professionals in with amateur violin players as though they have the same credibility in the geosciences? And your ignorance of the basics of this name calling game you are playing is ridiculous.

Here...let me play, except I'm going to use actual experts...

Hubbert...Root...Arps...McCabe...Gorelick....Charpentier...
Duncan (no, not the Olduvai Gorge nutbag)...Singer...Drew....Magoon...Ahlbrandt...

See how easy that was? The difference being I didn't reference anyone who's claim to fame is playing a violin.

It requires more than memorizing a list of names, and throwing it down as though every word they have ever said verifies the utterly ridiculous claims you are making. To date the only piece of work you seem to have been willing to pretend to understand is the Hirsch 2005 DOE report, and it is becoming more obvious by the minute that not only didn't you read it, when you are pointed to EXACTLY the page and text I used to discredit it, you don't even know WHY the reference discredits it.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Straw man creatiion 2.0!! Here, I'll be a perpetual douche like you: Please reference where I suggested that term comes from Hubbert!!! Just one will do



Hubbert was a scientist. Upon which the religion of peak oil is based. Because peak oil is infested with amateur violin players pretending to be oilmen, it is necessary to weed out the actual experts, and to check out their ideas. Hubbert was one such person. If you have an actual expert of his caliber who wrote a paper on this plateau concept...fine...I will wait until you can find them. Your word, culled from the mythology of peak, is utterly worthless on this topic. You interchangably confuse industry experts and violin players for Christs sake, change the definition of peak oil to play bookkeeping tricks with oil, and can't even parrot back an EROEI example I can't become John
D. Rockefeller with.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> It's telling watching you desperately attempt to keep me from citing sources you can't spin.



So far, the only thing you've claimed to have read is the Hirsch report (your posting to the contrary), and you contradict that claim evert post you
make on the topic.

Maybe we need to start out at even a more basic level. Do you even know what oil IS?


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> You can link to a new "find" like that each and every day. Total them up, and they won't compare to the rate of dying existing capacity.



Please reference anyone who quantifies the difference between "dying" capacity and "non-dying" capacity please.

An oilfield begins dying the same day the first well begins producing. 



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> If you wanna support your Egypt claim, man up and link.



If you want to stop being a parrot, defend a single quote, from any peak oil prophet, of your choice, why would you challenge anyone else when all you've got is standard ASPO propaganda? Do you even know WHY it's propaganda?



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Again, I can claim I've found 5000 years of crude on the moon. But if it bankrupts my company trying to get to it, doesn't really mean much, does it?



You aren't seriously supposing that this ridiculous assertion is the sum total knowledge of how the oilfield works are you? Or is this another one of those "trade you 5 for 2" displays of ignorance you wheel out once per page?


----------



## RGR

Mr. H. said:


> I'd be overjoyed with a 2 bbl/day well.
> 
> $170/day... $5,000/month... less 12.5% royalty... less 30% lifting costs =  about $3,000/month.
> $36k a year (Only $28,000 of it taxable if you figure depletion allowance).
> 
> Not too shabby.



Damn straight. I've got buddies who run shackle lines as a form of moonlighting. Inherited the wells from their father. Most of them producing for a century now. Lets take bets on whether or not the village oil idiot can come up with a peak oil video explaining how wells with wooden casing have a much higher EROEI than those using steel? And then confuse the math to make it look like they are more profitable than the Spindletop discovery?


----------



## westwall

RGR said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be overjoyed with a 2 bbl/day well.
> 
> $170/day... $5,000/month... less 12.5% royalty... less 30% lifting costs =  about $3,000/month.
> $36k a year (Only $28,000 of it taxable if you figure depletion allowance).
> 
> Not too shabby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn straight. I've got buddies who run shackle lines as a form of moonlighting. Inherited the wells from their father. Most of them producing for a century now. Lets take bets on whether or not the village oil idiot can come up with a peak oil video explaining how wells with wooden casing have a much higher EROEI than those using steel? And then confuse the math to make it look like they are more profitable than the Spindletop discovery?
Click to expand...





Indeed, the Mexican Hat oil field in Utah is an excellent example of that.  They have a 2.5 acre offset, drill down to about 50 feet or so and pump a few bbl per day, every day for the last 50 years that I know of.  When a well runs dry they shut it down for a few years and then go back and tap it again.  Just like clockwork.  Interestingly it is also the only producing geosyncline I know of.


----------



## mdn2000

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can link to a new "find" like that each and every day. Total them up, and they won't compare to the rate of dying existing capacity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please reference anyone who quantifies the difference between "dying" capacity and "non-dying" capacity please.
> 
> An oilfield begins dying the same day the first well begins producing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you wanna support your Egypt claim, man up and link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to stop being a parrot, defend a single quote, from any peak oil prophet, of your choice, why would you challenge anyone else when all you've got is standard ASPO propaganda? Do you even know WHY it's propaganda?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I can claim I've found 5000 years of crude on the moon. But if it bankrupts my company trying to get to it, doesn't really mean much, does it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You aren't seriously supposing that this ridiculous assertion is the sum total knowledge of how the oilfield works are you? Or is this another one of those "trade you 5 for 2" displays of ignorance you wheel out once per page?
Click to expand...


The only thing I got to state is you have not left a piece of Jiggs for anyone else. I almost feel like changing sides to at least help Jiggs log off the USMB.


----------



## Douger

Old Rocks said:


> In some places, water heated by this hot rock comes naturally to the surface or close to it, where it can be easily tapped to drive a turbine and generate electricity.


You mean like on my farm near Rincon de la vieja ?
Yes those are bromeliads and ferns that murkins pay $18 for at Walmart.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlieRhA8pT8&NR=1[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dm8s2EV6Nx0&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## RGR

mdn2000 said:


> The only thing I got to state is you have not left a piece of Jiggs for anyone else. I almost feel like changing sides to at least help Jiggs log off the USMB.



It really isn't fair for Jiggsy, so sure, help him out. 

Resource depletion is a serious issue, and then these half baked religious zealots looking for Rapture show up and the entire topic looks like a joke.


----------



## mdn2000

RGR said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing I got to state is you have not left a piece of Jiggs for anyone else. I almost feel like changing sides to at least help Jiggs log off the USMB.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It really isn't fair for Jiggsy, so sure, help him out.
> 
> Resource depletion is a serious issue, and then these half baked religious zealots looking for Rapture show up and the entire topic looks like a joke.
Click to expand...


People just do not get how big the world really is or what it takes to build something nor that the politicians do things for money. 

It is clear they fight for politics and not science. At best they use press releases as source material. 

If and when the Oil runs out you are not going to replace oil with Wind Turbines or Solar Farms, you need oil to build these things, at the least you need the Petro Chemicals that only come from Oil.


----------

