# now, it's the IEA admitting peak



## JiggsCasey

so, last week it was the International Monetary Fund, now, on queue, the IEA...  next week, who knows? ... maybe the World Bank? USAID? heck, the UN? ... it'll prolly move on a Friday too, like this absolute bummer did:

*






Cheap energy no more, IEA says*
Cheap energy no more, IEA says - UPI.com

_LUXEMBOURG, April 22 (UPI) -- The global energy sector will have to kick into high gear to meet soaring demand, the IEA said as it warned of the end of cheap energy.

The International Energy Agency warned that it won't be easy to reverse the rise in energy prices because it's getting harder to access and exploit conventional resources.

"The age of cheap energy is over," said IEA Executive Director Nobuo Tanaka in a statement from Luxembourg.

Tanaka said that if one assumes high prices are here to stay, the energy sector needs to consider whether the "extra rent" goes into the pocketbooks of global energy companies is going toward increased environmental sustainability.

IEA analysts said the world needs another 50 million barrels of oil from new fields by 2035 in order to meet expected demand. Crude oil *production from existing fields, meanwhile, is expected to decline from the 68-million-barrel-per-day mark in 2009 to just 16 million bpd by 2035.*

"Despite the fact that crude oil production doesn't increase, the need for new capacity on a gross basis is still very large, because so much of the world's existing production capacity will have been lost by the end of the projection period (of 2035)," said Tanaka._​
Let's see if we've got that straight (and anyone please stop me if I'm wrong): 

the International Energy Agency - a global policy-influencing entity that, for years, has flat denied or deflected from acknowledging peak - just admitted the comfy world as we know it will absolutely want/need/require 50 million additional barrels per day by the time our children are in their 20s and 30s. And yet, it is ALSO saying the capacity of all known fields that exist today will in fact be LOSING 50 million barrels per day from what they provide currently. Can we assume then that we really need close to 100 million barrels of newly discovered oil - per day - by 2035? ....  Shit, just for argument's sake, let's pretend the IEA is being over dramatic and call it merely 40 million new barrels. No. 30 million barrels. ...  every day. 

While you're pondering that figure, remind yourself that the Macondo Prospect that Deepwater Horizon was sucking off contained a total of 55 million barrels. Heck, not even a day's worth of what the IEA says the next generation will need. A night's sleep worth. ... Was it worth it? Would thousands more of them be?

Gosh, I guess mankind had better find about 5 new Ghawars in the next 10 years then... what with all that advanced exploration technology them librul lawmakers just won't let us use.  ... 

Of course, we could always let the rest of the world eat cake, and "frack" our way through the problem. There's supposedly "a thousanty trillion cubic meters" of that gas-from-rock stuff everywhere, from Conn. to Arkansas to Wyoming to Idaho, if the EPA would just stfu and (continue to) look the other way. ... Good times.

And so here we are. Many of us seeing the writing on the wall, knowing the world will never reach those new 50-100 million barrels per day, because demand will be crushed. ...   others admitting (perhaps finally) obvious supply problems, yet sure as the sun will rise that technology is not only ready, but in place for a seamless transition into something new, _'like it always does!'... 'boy, i say boy!...  the stone age din't end cause of lack o' stones!'_

The IEA has admitted the Peak Oil condition. Period, end of story.


----------



## editec

As far as FRACKING for natural gas?

Pennsylvania just had its first FRACKING disaster.

*Pennsylvania Fracking Spill: Natural Gas Well Blowout Spills Thousands Of Gallons Of Drilling Fluid *


----------



## mudwhistle

editec said:


> As far as FRACKING for natural gas?
> 
> Pennsylvania just had its first FRACKING disaster.
> 
> *Pennsylvania Fracking Spill: Natural Gas Well Blowout Spills Thousands Of Gallons Of Drilling Fluid *



All that Fracking Fluid spilling all over the Fracking place. 

Oh the humanity.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> so, last week it was the International Monetary Fund, now, on queue, the IEA...  next week, who knows? ... maybe the World Bank? USAID? heck, the UN? ... it'll prolly move on a Friday too, like this absolute bummer did:
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheap energy no more, IEA says*



Cheap crude disappeared in 1969. 

So you are now claiming that 40+ years after it happened, that someone noticing is a amazing thing? And they didn't say peak you parrot...if you are going to claim someone is declaring yet another peak, they should do so, rather than you titling your thread as though they are, when they aren't.

I mean seriously Jiggs, do they teach ignorance at your church and you are a wonderful student, or were you born this way?


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> Gosh, I guess mankind had better find about 5 new Ghawars in the next 10 years then... what with all that advanced exploration technology them librul lawmakers just won't let us use.  ...



Oh. And apparently we have discovered a few new Saudi Arabia's (to heck with just a Ghawar!) and peakers forgot to mention it!

(WARNING: Addition and subtraction skills required: Jiggsy, find a second grader for help with the math section)

PowerSwitch :: View topic - Expected decline rates and the questions they generate.


----------



## editec

mudwhistle said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as FRACKING for natural gas?
> 
> Pennsylvania just had its first FRACKING disaster.
> 
> *Pennsylvania Fracking Spill: Natural Gas Well Blowout Spills Thousands Of Gallons Of Drilling Fluid *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All that Fracking Fluid spilling all over the Fracking place.
> 
> Oh the humanity.
Click to expand...

 
Well actually it's the humanities water supplies that the folks in PA are worried about.

Quite appropraitely worried, too,  I might add.


----------



## chikenwing

editec said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as FRACKING for natural gas?
> 
> Pennsylvania just had its first FRACKING disaster.
> 
> *Pennsylvania Fracking Spill: Natural Gas Well Blowout Spills Thousands Of Gallons Of Drilling Fluid *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All that Fracking Fluid spilling all over the Fracking place.
> 
> Oh the humanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well actually it's the humanities water supplies that the folks in PA are worried about.
> 
> Quite appropraitely worried, too,  I might add.
Click to expand...


Disaster,not so much,a spill yes,but not a disaster,no fish kill or water supply affected.


----------



## chikenwing

And as usual the media blows it out of reality, 1 farm,not farms,1 field not fields.

North east pa has gained so much economically from gas drilling,farms that were on the brink are now solvent,new start ups in support for drilling are doing very well.

They will learn from this and make improvements,this is a resource we need in this area,but as with everything,there is a cost.

As exploration has moved ahead,they have discovered,just as much oil as gas,its a huge find.


----------



## chikenwing

There are signs next to peoples gas meters on there homes,in protest of drilling,but they still want their gas.Could one be more selfish??

You don't want gas drilling,give up your gas,you can't have it both ways.


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> Cheap crude disappeared in 1969.



Are you saying I've somehow tried to suggest this? 

If not, what does this statement mean then? Just that "cheap" crude is subjective? Sure, I'll admit that, to a degree.



RGR said:


> So you are now claiming that 40+ years after it happened, that someone noticing is a amazing thing? And they didn't say peak you parrot...if you are going to claim someone is declaring yet another peak, they should do so, rather than you titling your thread as though they are, when they aren't.



I'm sorry you disagree, but yes they most certainly are admitting to the peak condition. 

In the paragraph bolded, they are most certainly "saying" the growth model required is completely unsustainable. You had better do a bit more than continuously pointing to Spraberry as your evidence of alleged "reserve growth" on the scale required to mitigate dying existing capacity.

I'm not going to fight with you any longer. I've had a death in the family, and your snark, while usually entertaining, is no longer embraced. .... Let's please cut the crap, it's boring. Debate like a man, not an insecure "industry insider." Or I'm done with you. Your choice.


----------



## uscitizen

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> so, last week it was the International Monetary Fund, now, on queue, the IEA...  next week, who knows? ... maybe the World Bank? USAID? heck, the UN? ... it'll prolly move on a Friday too, like this absolute bummer did:
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheap energy no more, IEA says*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheap crude disappeared in 1969.
> 
> So you are now claiming that 40+ years after it happened, that someone noticing is a amazing thing? And they didn't say peak you parrot...if you are going to claim someone is declaring yet another peak, they should do so, rather than you titling your thread as though they are, when they aren't.
> 
> I mean seriously Jiggs, do they teach ignorance at your church and you are a wonderful student, or were you born this way?
Click to expand...


You really have no clue how supply and demand works in the oil industry do you?


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cheap crude disappeared in 1969.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying I've somehow tried to suggest this?
Click to expand...


No. I am saying you quoted an article written by someone just as ignorant of peak oil and the oil industry as you. I have already told you, go back to your church and find someone who knows something, have them come on back. 



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> If not, what does this statement mean then? Just that "cheap" crude is subjective? Sure, I'll admit that, to a degree.



The real price of oil, over its history, is not subjective, it is historical fact.  Any peaker should have this chart memorized. Why don't you?

Crude Oil Prices 1861 - 2009 - Forbes.com



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> I'm sorry you disagree, but yes they most certainly are admitting to the peak condition.
> In the paragraph bolded, they are most certainly "saying" the growth model required is completely unsustainable.



Here is Hubberts 1956 paper, upon which your religion is based. Please show me his calculations using a "growth model" which uses the term "price" anywhere, rather than saying that oil production goes up, peaks, and comes back down in a predictable manner. Page and paragraph will suffice. Also, where does he call it a "condition"? Or are you making this things up again because we all read the reference you provided and it didn't say anything about peak oil? Just your interpretation of some piece of it, which is based on nothing more than your religious beliefs and ignorance of basic economics?

Nuclear Energy and the Fossil Fuels | Energy Bulletin



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> You had better do a bit more than continuously pointing to Spraberry as your evidence of alleged "reserve growth" on the scale required to mitigate dying existing capacity.



Trust me Jiggsy, you don't want to discuss reserve growth with me. I have already provided the EIA information showing its size and consistency through time. Go review that thread. Should be easy to find, its the one where you forgot how to google up information, thereby demonstrating your intellectual ability on something most 3rd graders are familiar with.


----------



## RGR

uscitizen said:


> You really have no clue how supply and demand works in the oil industry do you?



I am very familiar with supply and demand. I have relied on it doing its job down through the ages, and it hasn't let me down yet.

However, the information I provided was to the real cost of oil. That stopped back in about 69 or 70, and has been trending upwards ever since. Peakers hadn't discovered this information as recently as the late-90's, when one of their Priests named Colin Campbell, thought that cheap oil might disappear soon. He apparently did not pick up a book on the economics of oil prior to writing one of the Scriptures of Peak.


----------



## KissMy

World Oil Production is still on the rise.






The falling US dollar & adding 2 billion Asian drivers may very well outstrip the rising oil supply. This is why we will not have any more cheap oil. Indo-China is the new rising economic power. Get use to having less of everything in the USA from now on.


----------



## RGR

KissMy said:


> Get use to having less of everything in the USA from now on.



I have no objection to the idea that as America devalues its currency, all sorts of things will become more expensive. Particular our imports. We deserve it. 

And it isn't "less of everything", more like "everything is more expensive".  Perhaps next time we won't elect leaders who represent our economic interests so poorly.


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get use to having less of everything in the USA from now on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no objection to the idea that as America devalues its currency, all sorts of things will become more expensive. Particular our imports. We deserve it.
> 
> And it isn't "less of everything", more like "everything is more expensive".  Perhaps next time we won't elect leaders who represent our economic interests so poorly.
Click to expand...


And what do you propose future leaders do to represent our economic interests in this global economy?


----------



## bripat9643

The IEA is a socialist propaganda organ.  Why wouldn't they "admit" what is in their self interest to promote?

That's like Nazi Pelosi "admitting" that George Bush caused the sub-prime mortgage debacle.



JiggsCasey said:


> The IEA has admitted the Peak Oil condition. Period, end of story.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> And what do you propose future leaders do to represent our economic interests in this global economy?



I propose that they consider the welfare and well being of the majority of the people they represent primarily, rather than basing their representation on the wants of their largest campaign donors.


----------



## Old Rocks

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> so, last week it was the International Monetary Fund, now, on queue, the IEA...  next week, who knows? ... maybe the World Bank? USAID? heck, the UN? ... it'll prolly move on a Friday too, like this absolute bummer did:
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheap energy no more, IEA says*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheap crude disappeared in 1969.
> 
> So you are now claiming that 40+ years after it happened, that someone noticing is a amazing thing? And they didn't say peak you parrot...if you are going to claim someone is declaring yet another peak, they should do so, rather than you titling your thread as though they are, when they aren't.
> 
> I mean seriously Jiggs, do they teach ignorance at your church and you are a wonderful student, or were you born this way?
Click to expand...


Hmmm......    I think that you are the dummy here, Peak Oil for the US occured around 1970. So the price of fuel started ratcheting up at the time as we went over the hump for peak oil here in the US. Now we see the same effect for fuel prices as we experiance the peak for the world.


----------



## Old Rocks

bripat9643 said:


> The IEA is a socialist propaganda organ.  Why wouldn't they "admit" what is in their self interest to promote?
> 
> That's like Nazi Pelosi "admitting" that George Bush caused the sub-prime mortgage debacle.
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The IEA has admitted the Peak Oil condition. Period, end of story.
Click to expand...


Oh my, another dumb ass that thinks the answer to any stated problem is to call those defining the problem 'Socialists'. 

Like global warming, peak oil is a fact, one that will have an increasing effect on our economy. We can ignore both, and slide into third world status as those that respond to the challenge take the economic and political lead in the future, or we can take up the challenge. 

Given the number of idiots like yourself, Bripat, I think there is more than an even chance that the US will become another third world nation.


----------



## Old Rocks

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what do you propose future leaders do to represent our economic interests in this global economy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I propose that they consider the welfare and well being of the majority of the people they represent primarily, rather than basing their representation on the wants of their largest campaign donors.
Click to expand...


Now RGR, you cannot outlaw the GOP, no matter how backward they are.


----------



## RGR

Old Rocks said:


> Hmmm......    I think that you are the dummy here, Peak Oil for the US occured around 1970.



That was certainly the last one. There were several before it of course. The one in 1923 was certainly scary. Took nearly 7 years to recover from it.  The one in 1956 only lasted 5 years. Or were you referring to the ones before 1900? Don't have the figures in front of me, but I think there was one or two then as well.



			
				OldRocks said:
			
		

> So the price of fuel started ratcheting up at the time as we went over the hump for peak oil here in the US. Now we see the same effect for fuel prices as we experiance the peak for the world.



Really? Prices in the US for fuel also collapsed in 1986, 16 years after the US peak. Then it got more expensive through 1990. Then it got cheaper through 1998. Then it got more expensive through 2000. Then it stayed cheaper through 2003. Then it got more expensive through 2008. Then it got cheaper. Now its getting more expensive.

You want to use all these ups and downs as proof of what? Prices went up through 1990 and caused peak? And up through 2000..and another peak? Peak in 2008? Peak in 2010?

You do realize that there is supposed to be ONE peak, and when Hubbert wrote his paper on the topic, he didn't say it was determined by price, but by production rates, right? Or is this someone else's version of what peak oil production is? Confusing it with price? You are aware that real crude oil prices this year aren't any different than they were in 1864, right? Did that peak oil (high price = peak, right)  harm your great-great-great grandparents much? Didn't seem to bother mine.


----------



## RGR

Old Rocks said:


> Like global warming, peak oil is a fact, one that will have an increasing effect on our economy.



Sure it's a fact. It has even happened before, and people were worried about its effects during those other times as well. Scared the crap out of Warren Harding....in 1923. As old as your rocks might be, I doubt if either you or I were around for that oil scare!

Imagine how frightening this most recent peak oil might be, if we aren't even appropriating land to put aside for future use! Someone must tell the President to start acquiring property to set aside for future generations! <eek!>


----------



## RGR

Old Rocks said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what do you propose future leaders do to represent our economic interests in this global economy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I propose that they consider the welfare and well being of the majority of the people they represent primarily, rather than basing their representation on the wants of their largest campaign donors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now RGR, you cannot outlaw the GOP, no matter how backward they are.
Click to expand...


I have advocated the outlawing of no one. Be they the spend and taxers, or the tax and spenders (I'll let you fellows sort out which is which )


----------



## KissMy

IEA's own chart contradicts their propaganda.


----------



## Old Rocks

OK. People, find a chart that shows increasing reserves because of new discoveries. You cannot, because there it doesn't exist. We can temporarily increase supply by pumping more, but that just means the slope will be even steeper when we hit the bottom of the barrel.


----------



## RGR

Not a chart but.....this guy at po.com has been tallying up new discoveries for a couple years now. They have been in the 20-35 billion barrel range. His username is Oilfinder2, he has been documenting the discoveries for almost 4 years now.

Interesting in that the ASPO discovery charts want to censor that just like they do the real oil discoveries, isn't it?

Also, we have yet ANOTHER global peak oil I might add.

http://peakoil.com/forums/eia-reports-a-new-peak-in-crude-oil-at-75-282-million-bpd-t61460.html


----------



## Old Rocks

*I have far more trust in the USGS assessments of reserves than the people promoting drilling. Look at the differance in the statements here. The promoters are stating that the USGS says 175 to 500 bbls, while the USGS site states 3.65 bbls. Were we able to extract every drop, that would equal a year of the amount of oil we import at present. *

Massive Oil Deposit Could Increase US reserves by 10x

In the next 30 days the USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) will release a new report giving an accurate resource assessment of the Bakken Oil Formation that covers North Dakota and portions of South Dakota and Montana. With new horizontal drilling technology it is believed that from 175 to 500 billion barrels of recoverable oil are held in this 200,000 square mile reserve that was initially discovered in 1951. The USGS did an initial study back in 1999 that estimated 400 billion recoverable barrels were present but with prices bottoming out at $10 a barrel back then the report was dismissed because of the higher cost of horizontal drilling techniques that would be needed, estimated at $20-$40 a barrel.

USGS Release: 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana&#146;s Bakken Formation25 Times More Than 1995 Estimate (4/10/2008 2:25:36 PM)

Reston, VA - North Dakota and Montana have an estimated 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil in an area known as the Bakken Formation.

A U.S. Geological Survey assessment, released April 10, shows a 25-fold increase in the amount of oil that can be recovered compared to the agency's 1995 estimate of 151 million barrels of oil.


----------



## KissMy

Old Rocks said:


> OK. People, find a chart that shows increasing reserves because of new discoveries. You cannot, because there it doesn't exist. We can temporarily increase supply by pumping more, but that just means the slope will be even steeper when we hit the bottom of the barrel.



Here is the chart that shows increasing reserves / production capacity. It is from the EIA & IEA.


----------



## RGR

How dare you show yet another peak in oil production! Don't you realize that the peak religion has been praying for this stuff to STOP for the past 20 years now! The insanity must stop!


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> Don't you realize that the peak religion has been praying for this stuff to STOP for the past 20 years now!



Hysterical as you now appear, for principle's sake it's important to note that this above just isn't accurate at all. ... Sad that you've become this predictable. It's easier for you to tell yourself that I "want" it to be true. ...  You all eventually resort to it. Almost on queue. You're no different. 

I certainly don't wish for this to happen in the least. I love life, and all the little amenities and pleasures our _empire _affords us. I admire growth, and I love the idea of a bright future for our kids. I hate thinking about the smaller world that the obligatory oil shock is going to bring, and find it all rather heart-breaking. 

But at some point -- with each new international entity that "comes out" and admits the condition anyone can plainly see  --  every American has to stop lying to him or herself, instead of repeating the same insanity over and over again. Whether you hide behind wild "reserve growth" claims, or hydraulic fracking short-sightedness, or laughable (and ironic) conspiracy theory asserting "artificial price increases" for profit, eventually the story just doesn't bail water any longer. The debate is over. Kinda was years ago. ... Time to get your financial ducks in a row. Think about the benefits of getting very liquid. ... Or at the very least, hedge.

There are 5 stages of grief. Some of us remain mired in the denial and anger stages, others are over here... at acceptance.

Ah well. ... Look at them all crashing in. The Joint Chiefs, the German gov., the IMF, the IEA.... It's coming in waves now, isn't it? Unrelenting. ...   Who is it THIS week? ... One of the largest asset managers in the whole damned world....  Spin away:

GMO Quarterly
_by Jeremy Grantham, Chief Investment Officer of GMO Capital ($106 billion in assets under management):_

*Time to Wake Up:**
Days of Abundant Resources and Falling Prices Are Over Forever*
http://www.gmo.com/websitecontent/JGLetterALL_1Q11.pdf

_*Summary​*
The world is using up its natural resources at an alarming rate, and this has caused a permanent shift in their value.  We all need to adjust our behavior to this new Environment.  It would help if we did it quickly.

*... to Rising Prices​*
The 102 years to 2002 saw almost each individual commodity &#8211; both metals and gricultural &#8211; hit all-time lows.  Only oil had clearly peeled off in 1974, a precursor of things to come.  But since 2002, we have the most remarkable price rise, in real terms, ever recorded, and this, I believe, will go down in the history books.  Exhibit 2 shows this watershed event.  Until 20 years ago, there were no surprises at all in the sense that great unexpected events like World War I, World War II, and the double in&#64258;ationary oil crises of 1974 and 1979 would cause prices to generally surge; and setbacks like the post-World War I depression and the Great Depression would cause prices to generally collapse.  Much as you might expect, except that it all took place around a downward trend.  But in the 1990s, things started to act oddly.  First, there was a remarkable decline for the 15 or so years to 2002.  What description should be added to our exhibit?  &#8220;The 1990&#8217;s Surge in Resource Productivity&#8221; might be one.  Perhaps it was encouraged by the fall of the Soviet bloc.  It was a very important but rather stealthy move, and certainly not one that was much remarked on in investment circles.  It was as if lower prices were our divine right.  And more to the point, what description do we put on the surge from 2002 until now?  It is far bigger than the one caused by World War II, happily without World War III.  My own suggestion would be &#8220;The Great Paradigm Shift.&#8221;_​


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> Ah well. ... Look at them all crashing in. The Joint Chiefs, the German gov., the IMF, the IEA.... It's coming in waves now, isn't it? Unrelenting. ...   Who is it THIS week? ... One of the largest asset managers in the whole damned world....  Spin away:



There you go...parroting again. Try thinking...it will hold you in better stead as we go through yet ANOTHER peak oil.

When you figure out which peak oil is THE peak oil, and whether its one of the old ones, or a newer one in the future, let us know. Perhaps it would be better stated, "When your cut and paste sources figure out....." because certainly a parrot isn't ever going to understand this for themselves.


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah well. ... Look at them all crashing in. The Joint Chiefs, the German gov., the IMF, the IEA.... It's coming in waves now, isn't it? Unrelenting. ...   Who is it THIS week? ... One of the largest asset managers in the whole damned world....  Spin away:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go...parroting again. Try thinking...it will hold you in better stead as we go through yet ANOTHER peak oil.
> 
> When you figure out which peak oil is THE peak oil, and whether its one of the old ones, or a newer one in the future, let us know. Perhaps it would be better stated, "When your cut and paste sources figure out....." because certainly a parrot isn't ever going to understand this for themselves.
Click to expand...


Uh huh.... You're in full desperation mode. But then, if you weren't such an unrivaled dick from the moment you joined, it would be easy to let you off the hook amicably. 

Denialist PARROT.

Ah well, here's yet another wave, crashing on your eroding shoreline:

oops... 

*Demand, not speculation, cited for rising oil prices*
Oil price spike: Speculators aren't to blame - chicagotribune.com

_High oil prices are here to stay, *and they're caused by surging demand and limited new supply, not Wall Street speculators.*

That's the message from Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency.

"Speculators are only responding to what is going on in the markets," Birol said. "We don't see enough oil in the markets. The major driver is supply and demand."

Birol said growth in worldwide oil demand is outstripping growth in new supplies by 1 million barrels a day per year._​
add the Chicago Tribune to the ever-expanding list of news agencies acknowledging peak condition...  I'm sure Birol secretly knows a "new peak" is just around the corner though, and he's just in on the conspiracy though.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you figure out which peak oil is THE peak oil, and whether its one of the old ones, or a newer one in the future, let us know. Perhaps it would be better stated, "When your cut and paste sources figure out....." because certainly a parrot isn't ever going to understand this for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh huh.... You're in full desperation mode. But then, if you weren't such an unrivaled dick from the moment you joined, it would be easy to let you off the hook amicably.
Click to expand...


Good one. We have a parrot who won't even bring over a thinking member of their church, and you want to pretend it's my problem?



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> _High oil prices are here to stay, *and they're caused by surging demand and limited new supply, not Wall Street speculators.*
> 
> That's the message from Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency.
> _​


_

Faith also apparently has decided that peak oil was in 2006. And then his organization released the information for fuel production hitting all time highs in 2010. In other words, yet another peak.

So would you say Faith is lying to your church, or is incompetent and doesn't review his own agencies information?



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		


			add the Chicago Tribune to the ever-expanding list of news agencies acknowledging peak condition...  I'm sure Birol secretly knows a "new peak" is just around the corner though, and he's just in on the conspiracy though. 

Click to expand...


He said peak was in 2006. Are you claiming that he really hasn't read his own information showing a new peak in 2010? Or did he just throw out this conflicting information to test how ignorant peakers are, seeing which ones are parrots and just spew out the nonsense dejour?

He sure got you, didn't he!

Here is Faith calling peak back in 2006.

Oil prices to keep rising as peak production reached in 2006 - The Irish Times - Fri, Apr 29, 2011

Here is IEA information showing yet ANOTHER peak in 2010.






So which is it parrot? Does Faith lie, or is he incompetent?

You didn't really think even an educated peaker (read, not a parrot or member of your congregation) can escape the raw logic faults of your position? I realize you fall for it naturally, ignorance coming easily to you, and the religious aspects allowing you an endless mantra to repeat to help out your limited memory. Parrots like you love mantra. 

Faith should know better._​


----------



## JiggsCasey

ah, the graph that denialist parrots trot out every time.

that's more than the IEA, genius... note the solid green line, which was released last, from the EIA. A line which has slowed to a crawl along the Y axis since 2005, despite and quadrupling increase in price. How much will oil price need to rise for that line to reach 90 million bpd? 95 million? 110 million, as the IEA says we'll need by 2020? ... LOL

We are at the peak. Small spikes here and there due to desperate measures in expanding unconventional fuels mean nothing for disputing the peak of light crude. 

Show the forum that table for global light crude production, ... or explain how shale gas/tar sands, etc. will allow us to pass seamlessly into the new paradigm. Chryst, you admitted the problem right here in THIS POST!!!    LOL. Meanwhile, the global economy is at the brink. If you can't do either, please stfu and gtfo.

Just wait til those 2Q reports start coming in in July. Look out below!!!!


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> ah, the graph that denialist parrots trot out every time.
> 
> that's more than the IEA, genius... note the solid green line, which was released last, from the EIA. A line which has slowed to a crawl along the Y axis since 2005, despite and quadrupling increase in price. How much will oil price need to rise for that line to reach 90 million bpd? 95 million? 110 million, as the IEA says we'll need by 2020? ... LOL



Answer the question parrot. Is Faith incompetent, or does he lie? He is your source, not mine. I doubt the guy has ever picked up a pipe wrench in his life, let alone drilled a horizontal well or found an oilfield or interpreted a seismic line.

Which is it parrot?



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> We are at the peak.



Sure. Just like all the other peaks. What is funny is that you don't have a clue as to why this one may or may not be different than the other ones.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Show the forum that table for global light crude production, ...



Why parrot? Are you under the mistaken impression that all the gasoline you put in your gas tank, and millions of other drivers put in their gas tanks, comes only from light crude? 



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> or explain how shale gas/tar sands, etc. will allow us to pass seamlessly into the new paradigm.



We are already there parrot. Haven't you noticed? Lets hypothesize for a second that Faith, YOUR reference who I have already shown is either speaking with forked tongue or doesn't even read the information his own organization provides, that Faith and his peak in 2006 is correct.

We are 5 years into our post peak world. I can go down to the corner gas distributor and buy a truck load if I wish. I can burn it in trash barrels in my front yard, and do it for as long as I can afford it. No lack of availability caused by peak. Tractors still plow the land. The big rigs transport lettuce to me from California. Burning diesel. Transoceanic shipping still transoceanic ships stuff. I can get on a plane this afternoon and fly anywhere I wish in the world, without much fear that the plane will run out of fuel, or there won't be any at any airport I land out. 

Here is what one of your peak oil prophets claimed would happen within days of peak oil happening.

BLUE: Feature Archive - Special: Here comes the nutcracker - Peak oil in a nutshell, by Jan Lundberg

5 years after it happened (according to Faith), can you explain why the Walmart trucks are still running?



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Just wait til those 2Q reports start coming in in July. Look out below!!!!



What will they show? The new peak in 2010 all the more clearly? Will Faith issue a retraction for making the same sort of mistake that peak cultists have been doing for 20 years now? Will he apologize for his mistake?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

If you don't drill for it, then, yes, it is scarce.


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> Answer the question parrot. Is Faith incompetent, or does he lie? He is your source, not mine. I doubt the guy has ever picked up a pipe wrench in his life, let alone drilled a horizontal well or found an oilfield or interpreted a seismic line.
> 
> Which is it parrot?



At this point, I'm fairly convinced you're the most insecure poster in internet forum history. Worse, you don't read well.

He doesn't work for the IEA any longer. He retired. You'd know that if you actually stopped to breathe and read any of the many stories I've posted featuring Fatish Birol. ... Regardless, I have little doubt he's quite competent. Certainly far, far more than goofy you. You award yourself first prize when it comes to the minutiae of drilling technology, but you have shown quite clearly that you have a severely stunted grasp of the overall topic of energy, and energy's symbiotic relationship with the economy. It's really laughable watching your argument morph from "oil fields filling back up" to "technology will save the day" to "shale gas, hooray!!!!" Tool.

So you cover for your inadequacies by flocking to this forum to respond as quickly as you possibly can to insert irrelevant deflection and obfuscation from the direct challenges put to you. I answer your irrelevant questions (for the sake of completeness, if nothing else). You duck from most of mine. 



RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are at the peak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Just like all the other peaks. What is funny is that you don't have a clue as to why this one may or may not be different than the other ones.
Click to expand...


Certainly I do. It's YOU that doesn't understand. Chyst, for all your know-it-all blather, you can't even grasp what peak means, as you continue to suggest peak would be some imaginary sharp point  on a pyramid. Instead, peak is a rounded-off plateau, somewhat flat at the apex, which we're experiencing now. The decline hasn't really begun in earnest yet. But the vast majority of models insist it IS imminent. The dearth of new discoveries of any significant reserve total certainly supports that model.



RGR said:


> Why parrot? Are you under the mistaken impression that all the gasoline you put in your gas tank, and millions of other drivers put in their gas tanks, comes only from light crude?



LOL... straw man, for the win!!!!  ... Ah well, if we've learned nothing else from king jackass here, it's that he'll make up a position his debate opponent never uttered, never insinuated, and just PARROT the word "parrot" over and over again. Delicious irony.



RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or explain how shale gas/tar sands, etc. will allow us to pass seamlessly into the new paradigm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are already there parrot. Haven't you noticed? Lets hypothesize for a second that Faith, YOUR reference who I have already shown is either speaking with forked tongue or doesn't even read the information his own organization provides, that Faith and his peak in 2006 is correct.
> 
> We are 5 years into our post peak world. I can go down to the corner gas distributor and buy a truck load if I wish. I can burn it in trash barrels in my front yard, and do it for as long as I can afford it. No lack of availability caused by peak. Tractors still plow the land. The big rigs transport lettuce to me from California. Burning diesel. Transoceanic shipping still transoceanic ships stuff. I can get on a plane this afternoon and fly anywhere I wish in the world, without much fear that the plane will run out of fuel, or there won't be any at any airport I land out.
Click to expand...


This paragraph has further confirmed what I said above, about you having ZERO idea what you're talking about regarding the plateau of peak. We are NOT 5 years into a "post peak world," you used douche. We are AT the plateau. Overall decline has been staved off by way of desperate measures with unconventional production. *Meanwhile, price is up 600% in 12 years*. Not sure if your piss-poor mind for economics can grasp what that means for anyone not behind a gated community in Texas, but that's a bit of a problem for the rest of the world.

It is sad watching you rationalize how "well off" you remain here in privileged America. If it's not happening to you, it's not happening anywhere on the planet. LOL.... So typical of Texan. "Let them eat cake!!" ... What a dick.

Meanwhile, food prices have doubled in 3-4 years, and dozens of nations are in revolt over it. I don't think I need to explain to you how the global food conveyor belt is utterly reliant on oil to maintain stasis.  Here's a newsflash, isolated little oil brat: MENA is as much about food prices as it is about anything else.



RGR said:


> Here is what one of your peak oil prophets claimed would happen within days of peak oil happening.
> 
> BLUE: Feature Archive - Special: Here comes the nutcracker - Peak oil in a nutshell, by Jan Lundberg
> 
> 5 years after it happened (according to Faith), can you explain why the Walmart trucks are still running?



Not familiar with him, and you won't be assigning who I subscribe to for my information. Sorry, desperate poster. It doesn't work that way, even as desperate as you are to control the discussion and assign my curriculum. Awwwww.... 



RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just wait til those 2Q reports start coming in in July. Look out below!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What will they show? The new peak in 2010 all the more clearly? Will Faith issue a retraction for making the same sort of mistake that peak cultists have been doing for 20 years now? Will he apologize for his mistake?
Click to expand...


They'll show the full effects of an entire post-Fukushima quarter earnings report. They'll scrub clean the transparency of a world economy that can no longer absorb natural disaster and shrug them off the way it always could when energy was cheap and abundant. 

Unfortunately for your dog & pony show here, world events do not support your "nothing to see here" mantra. I know that tightens your tie, and makes you wonder if your game of bullshit might be just about up. But the days of blaming liberal lawmakers for the systemic collapse of the world economy don't seem to bail water any more. Awwww... Must be something a bit deeper.

The EU is falling apart; U.S. states slide towards insolvency; Food cost are skyrocketing; Schools closing; Banks lacking lending capital have to be bailed out (twice); Pensions are increasingly slashed; Violent conflicts are sprouting up all over MENA; nations are gathering to lay the foundation to scrap the dying dollar for oil trade; Saudi is injecting sea water into their biggest fields just to maintain pressure; Libya's 1.7 mbpd is off the table, and Saudi won't (can't) pump more to make up for it... and on and on and on...

And all arrogant, goofy you, an "oil man," can focus on is just how "unaffected" you are -- so far -- here in the heart of the empire. ... 

Wow, RGR. You really are a whole big sack of fail. Your argument has disintegrated, and now you're left pretending dozens of international policy-setting entities are all somehow "wrong," and that you know better.  ...   But, when put to it, you can't actually counter what they're saying... So what do you base that empty arrogance on? LOL!!!! ... you base it on the fact that *you're* not feeling the pinch yet in happy-land Texas.

Holy crap, do you EVER suck at this.


----------



## Baruch Menachem

Peak oil was several million years ago, when the last of the critters that was turned into oil was turned into oil.

Same with peak coal.

We know we are using a non renewable resource and as each gallon is burned, we have less, and that getting the next incremental gallon will be that much harder.

The goal is to use the resource in the most responsible manner.    Which means government keeps their mitts off.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Baruch Menachem said:


> Peak oil was several million years ago, when the last of the critters that was turned into oil was turned into oil.
> 
> Same with peak coal.
> 
> We know we are using a non renewable resource and as each gallon is burned, we have less, and that getting the next incremental gallon will be that much harder.
> 
> The goal is to use the resource in the most responsible manner.    Which means government keeps their mitts off.



You might want to keep up on current events, the space program has totally demolished the notion that hydrocarbons come from dead dinosaurs because they even found lakes of the stuff on Saturn's Moon Titan


----------



## JiggsCasey

CrusaderFrank said:


> You might want to keep up on current events, the space program has totally demolished the notion that hydrocarbons come from dead dinosaurs because they even found lakes of the stuff on Saturn's Moon Titan



Yes, you keep trying this ploy. They've also found traces of alcohol in space. Will it be raining Duff beer any time now?

Even if you're right, and oil is abiotic, where is it enough to meet 110 million bpd by 2020? And why is oil price up 600% in 12 years?


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is your source, not mine. I doubt the guy has ever picked up a pipe wrench in his life, let alone drilled a horizontal well or found an oilfield or interpreted a seismic line.
> 
> Which is it parrot?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't work for the IEA any longer. He retired.
Click to expand...


Really? You should change his Wiki.

Fatih Birol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perhaps he retired somewhere between the beginning of this month when he had his job, and some time since then when you think he retired?

International Energy Agency's Top Economist Says Oil Peaked in 2006 - Environment - GOOD



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Regardless, I have little doubt he's quite competent.



Excellent. Then which is it? Was he making up the 2006 peak as a member in good standing to your religion, or does he just ignore his own agencies information? Not because of incompetence perhaps, but because the peak ciultists don't like to admit how many peak oils there has actually been over the years?

Which is it parrot? Try thinking for yourself if your dogma doesn't cover the answer to this one for you.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Instead, peak is a rounded-off plateau, somewhat flat at the apex, which we're experiencing now.



Please reference any equation Hubbert ever published, anywhere, which has a flat apex for any length of time at the peak. I dare you parrot.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> The decline hasn't really begun in earnest yet.



That is because production has started increasing again parrot. Just like it has the other times oil peaked I might add. Feel free to observe the graph and try thinking for yourself. Those lines...the ones going UP....isn't called a decline you nitwit.









			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Wow, RGR. You really are a whole big sack of fail.



check out the chart parrot. Even a parrot should know that when a line goes UP, only a crackpot confuses it with a DECLINE.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> And why is oil price up 600% in 12 years?



And yet cheaper than it was in 1864.

Great great granddad had a tough time fighting the civil war, what with the high price of crude and all!


----------



## JiggsCasey

That's total liquids, tool box. Conventionals have peaked.  The difference in maintaining EXTREMELY modest overall production growth is the far more expensive crap. Get it yet? Also, a minor blip at the top of the plateau due to minor market corrections isn't evidence that he was wrong. Conventionals peaked in the middle of last decade. I know that butt-rapes your entire "nothing to see here" platform, but too bad.

Ah well, here's the British Government, again, "wasting money" on peak oil contingency planning. LOL:

British Government Faces Up To Peak Oil - Energy Source - How we power the world - Forbes

You keep swimming upstream, little salmon. That's noble work you're doing, desperately trying to dispute the word of pretty much everyone, yet sounding more and more retarded with each shifting excuse.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> That's total liquids, tool box. Conventionals have peaked.



Again. How many more times do you think they'll peak Jiggsy? Do you even know how many decades can pass in a large geographical area between one peak and the next? Or did they not teach you that factoid in peaker sunday school either? (For the record, the answer as best I have been able to determine is about 80 years or so, maybe 90)

And remind me again, when you put those "liquids" in your gas tank, can you tell at the pump where the gas came from? And if you can't, and obviously you know you can't, can you please explain why it matters at all to the average gas pumping consumer if their gasoline purchase of 87 octane unleaded comes from crude, natural gas condensate, heavy oil, or bitumen?



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> The difference in maintaining EXTREMELY modest overall production growth is the far more expensive crap. Get it yet?



It isn't more expensive parrot. Pay attention. The real price of crude was higher in 1864 when great great grandpappy was riding a horse than it has been so far this year. So crude is CHEAPER now than it was then. Get it? Only dumbass peakers, who avoid the basics of economic theory at all costs, use nominal prices because then they can cherry pick a time frame and scream, "OMG! OIL HAS INCREASED 200% IN XX YEARS!!".

Just more peaker scare mongering, you guys can't even come up with something more original than cherry picking your data. 

So lets stick with the basics...crude oil now is cheaper than it was at the end of the Civil War. It has gone down in price since then....so it isn't more expensive, it's cheaper than great great grandpappy had to pay for it. Beyond showing that you are ignorant of real crude prices, what is your point? That crude prices becoming cheaper since the Civil War creates more parrots in our society because thinking has become more difficult in this year of cheap oil?



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Ah well, here's the British Government, again, "wasting money" on peak oil contingency planning. LOL:



The US government, and the US Navy, was doing contingency planning for peak oil and shortages before the Great Depression started. Does that mean peak oil happened back then as well? (hint hint...it did..but parrots who aren't taught that as part of their religious indoctrination don't know it).


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's total liquids, tool box. Conventionals have peaked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again. How many more times do you think they'll peak Jiggsy? Do you even know how many decades can pass in a large geographical area between one peak and the next? Or did they not teach you that factoid in peaker sunday school either? (For the record, the answer as best I have been able to determine is about 80 years or so, maybe 90)
> 
> And remind me again, when you put those "liquids" in your gas tank, can you tell at the pump where the gas came from? And if you can't, and obviously you know you can't, can you please explain why it matters at all to the average gas pumping consumer if their gasoline purchase of 87 octane unleaded comes from crude, natural gas condensate, heavy oil, or bitumen?
Click to expand...


He won't have to. His $5, $7, $9 per gallon cost will tell him all he'll need to know.

Provided demand isn't crushed via double-dip recession once again. And it will.

Of course, if it ain't affecting well-to-do Texans, it's all a big myth. 



RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference in maintaining EXTREMELY modest overall production growth is the far more expensive crap. Get it yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't more expensive parrot. Pay attention. The real price of crude was higher in 1864 when great great grandpappy was riding a horse than it has been so far this year. So crude is CHEAPER now than it was then. Get it? Only dumbass peakers, who avoid the basics of economic theory at all costs, use nominal prices because then they can cherry pick a time frame and scream, "OMG! OIL HAS INCREASED 200% IN XX YEARS!!".
> 
> Just more peaker scare mongering, you guys can't even come up with something more original than cherry picking your data.
> 
> So lets stick with the basics...crude oil now is cheaper than it was at the end of the Civil War. It has gone down in price since then....so it isn't more expensive, it's cheaper than great great grandpappy had to pay for it. Beyond showing that you are ignorant of real crude prices, what is your point? That crude prices becoming cheaper since the Civil War creates more parrots in our society because thinking has become more difficult in this year of cheap oil?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah well, here's the British Government, again, "wasting money" on peak oil contingency planning. LOL:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US government, and the US Navy, was doing contingency planning for peak oil and shortages before the Great Depression started. Does that mean peak oil happened back then as well? (hint hint...it did..but parrots who aren't taught that as part of their religious indoctrination don't know it).
Click to expand...


It's telling that you have to go back to the Civil War era, before the industrial age was ever available on a mass commercial scale, to find a price point that vaguely supports your claim.

This discussion is about today. And the edifice built TODAY on cheap energy. Not 160 years ago, when petroleum man was in his infancy. 

I'm sorry that you have such a visceral reaction to the end of the "infinite growth" myth you small-minded consumption whores have desperately tried to maintain for decades. But, you lost. Get over it. 

The world is aflame because of shrinking resources. The EU is splintering because it can't pay it's debts. MENA is tearing itself apart because it can't afford the cost of food any longer. You have no plausible narrative that explains the realities unfolding simultaneously all over the planet.

All you morons can cling to is "well, I'm safe behind my gated community, and I can afford $5 gas, so it's obviously not happening... You're dumb!! You're a parrot!!! ."

Tool.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> And remind me again, when you put those "liquids" in your gas tank, can you tell at the pump where the gas came from? And if you can't, and obviously you know you can't, can you please explain why it matters at all to the average gas pumping consumer if their gasoline purchase of 87 octane unleaded comes from crude, natural gas condensate, heavy oil, or bitumen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He won't have to. His $5, $7, $9 per gallon cost will tell him all he'll need to know.
Click to expand...


Price has nothing to do with whether or not the average consumers fuel comes from conventional crude or natural gas condensate. If you drive in the northeast US, you have already put natural gas condensate derived fuel in your tank, and you did not pay $5-$7-$9 a gallon for it. 



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US government, and the US Navy, was doing contingency planning for peak oil and shortages before the Great Depression started. Does that mean peak oil happened back then as well? (hint hint...it did..but parrots who aren't taught that as part of their religious indoctrination don't know it).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's telling that you have to go back to the Civil War era, before the industrial age was ever available on a mass commercial scale, to find a price point that vaguely supports your claim.
Click to expand...


Pay attention halfwit...I didn't go back to the Civil War because I had to, I did it to make a point. If I wanted something where crude was more expensive in my lifetime, I would just refer to periods of the 70's and early 80's when the real price of crude was more expensive than it is today as well.

I used the Civil War example to make a point or two, A) you obviously didn't know that the real price of crude was that high that long ago and B) you cherry picking time periods and nominal pricing was just that...cherry picking data. 



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> This discussion is about today. And the edifice built TODAY on cheap energy. Not 160 years ago, when petroleum man was in his infancy.



And peak oil is not about peak energy. They are not synonymous. Cheap crude ended in about 1969/1970 and has been trending more expensive ever since, you were RAISED in a time period of increasing crude prices. Didn't stop you from being a parrot, and certainly hasn't required everyone to become Amish, or whatever else peak oilers advocate in the name of their religious beliefs nowadays.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> The world is aflame because of shrinking resources.



A) the world isn't aflame and B) people wanting basic human rights and the kind of freedom we enjoy in America has nothing to do with shrinking resources. You need to get out more.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> All you morons can cling to is "well, I'm safe behind my gated community, and I can afford $5 gas, so it's obviously not happening... You're dumb!! You're a parrot!!! ."
> Tool.



Of course I can afford $5 gas....so could you if you only used a gallon a week..heck, you could even do that collecting aluminum cans along the roadside. Listen Jiggsy, if you think $5/gal is an unfair price to fuel your 50cc powered skateboard, there is an easy solution...DON'T BUY ANY. Don't like the price of gasoline? Modify your lifestyle to not use any and then stop harping on it like a shrill schoolgirl. Even a parrot should be able to figure this one out, no one requires you to drive an SUV to work or to haul little Billy to Little League practice in it...40 miles away from your home. You don't NEED your monster truck to cruise the mall hoping young women will overlook your lack of intellect and vehicular overcompensation for it and...other things....just change your damn behavior and stop whining already.


----------



## KissMy

Saudi is bringing 2 entirely new oil fields on-line. Just one of these new oil fields contains more oil than the entire USA. Saudi Aramco is using the USA's horizontal drilling techniques that now allow them to extract 10 times more oil from their oil reservoirs & formations than they ever could before. They & the rest of the world will not peak in oil production for many, many years. Likely 50 years or more according to Saudi Aramco's Ali Al Naimi.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP6DhKGDzek&feature=fvwrel"]The Oil Kingdom: Part One[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1t4ue-WmlU&NR=1&feature=fvwp"]The Oil Kingdom: Part Two[/ame]


----------



## sparky

> Saudi Aramco is using the USA's horizontal drilling techniques that now allow them to extract 10 times more oil



much Saud oil is salinated , not as pristine as it once was.   

they wouldn't be looking at techniques like sideways drillage if they were lousy with oil......


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt3dGOTyGaE&feature=player_detailpage]&#x202a;If You Don't Understand Peak Oil Or Think It Is Not For Real - See This Video&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## editec

Energy used to be relatively cheap. That is _not_ a theory, this is a fact. I know because _I was THERE as an adult buying that cheap energy_ (as were many of us over 50 years old) 

The price of gas used t to be about 1/5 of minimum wage per hourly rate.  Now its more like 1/2 minimum wage per hourly rate

So energy isn't cheap anymore by comparison to say the late 60s.

Whether that's the result of diminishing reserves or market manipulations I am not qualified to say.

But to dismiss that rising cost as _not important?_

That POV is just quite simply put -- _stupid as hell._


----------



## RGR

sparky said:


> Saudi Aramco is using the USA's horizontal drilling techniques that now allow them to extract 10 times more oil
> 
> 
> 
> 
> much Saud oil is salinated , not as pristine as it once was.
> 
> they wouldn't be looking at techniques like sideways drillage if they were lousy with oil......
> 
> Oh. Really? So if I produce 2 million barrels a day of fluid, all of which is oil, or 4 million barrels a day, 2 million of which is water, 2 million of which is oil, this is confusing to the average ignorant peaker mind is it? The oil is worth less is it? Us ptroleum engineers aren't smart enough to separate the two? (I'll give you a hint, you let them sit in a tank, and they do all the work for you!)
> 
> A quick hint, don't reference Colin for the basics of what petroleum engineers do for a living, wheel him out, let him totter around to make another peak oil call, or two, tell a Zionist story or two, and then wheel him back into a corner before the actual professionals can ask questions which pin down his engineering experience on the basics of oil and gas production. Which is none, if I recall. Colin is an explorationist, I doubt he has ever swung a pipe wrench in anger in his life.
Click to expand...


----------



## editec

RGR said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saudi Aramco is using the USA's horizontal drilling techniques that now allow them to extract 10 times more oil
> 
> 
> 
> 
> much Saud oil is salinated , not as pristine as it once was.
> 
> they wouldn't be looking at techniques like sideways drillage if they were lousy with oil......
> 
> Oh. Really? So if I produce 2 million barrels a day of fluid, all of which is oil, or 4 million barrels a day, 2 million of which is water, 2 million of which is oil, this is confusing to the average ignorant peaker mind is it? The oil is worth less is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it is MORE EXPENSIVE to pump out of the ground,  then YES it is less valuable becuase it COSTS MORE relative to the energy it provides.
> 
> _Jesus christ on a crutch_, where did YOU study economics?
> 
> Wherever it was you ought _to demand_ your money back.
Click to expand...


----------



## RGR

editec said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if I produce 2 million barrels a day of fluid, all of which is oil, or 4 million barrels a day, 2 million of which is water, 2 million of which is oil, this is confusing to the average ignorant peaker mind is it? The oil is worth less is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it is MORE EXPENSIVE to pump out of the ground,  then YES it is less valuable becuase it COSTS MORE relative to the energy it provides.
Click to expand...


"Less valuable" meaning, "I don't make as much money on it", sure, the rules of economics apply to the oil and has business. It is the asshats who think that mixing water with oil is some insurmountable barrier I have a beef with.

And in the realm of "everything is relative", a waterflood in the Cow Run at 400' of depth in Ohio is still cheaper than just the operating costs of a single 16,000 producing well in the GOM. You need a more apples to apples example when worrying about the separation or injection costs. 

I should also point out that peak oil theory is about aggregated production rates and it is only when the internet pinheads try and pretend they know something about the business do they confuse the costs involved with their religious beliefs.




			
				editec said:
			
		

> _Jesus christ on a crutch_, where did YOU study economics?



Fortunately, I am not an economist. But I think I understand the simplistic example you mentioned well enough. And why even the generalization you made is dangerous when the pinheads mistake it for a truth.


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> I am not an economist.



That was evident months ago. Considering you dismiss EROEI as a basic measurement of net energy, you're not much of a geologist or mathwiz either.

Dow's down 8% in a week. I'm sure all this market volatility lately has nothing to do with the fear of world energy supplies.   The credit/debt bubble has nothing to do with abundant cheap energy, or anything.

Afterall, according to our very own "Jerome Corsi" here, the IEA, the Pentagon, the IMF, the German and British governments, Total Oil, Oxford Univ., and countless other unrelated entities are all "lying" in proclaiming supply/demand shortfall of global energy reserves.

We all wonder where they met to get their story straight.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not an economist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was evident months ago.
Click to expand...


Not that a parrot would know.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Considering you dismiss EROEI as a basic measurement of net energy, you're not much of a geologist or mathwiz either.



I dismiss EROEI as a measure of value in the exploration, development, distribution or use of crude oil and natural gas. Your reading comprehension hasn't improved in your absence. I recommend you rent a first grader to read what I write, and explain it to you. Then you can parrot him/her, with the corresponding advantage of appearing more intelligent.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Afterall, according to our very own "Jerome Corsi" here, the IEA, the Pentagon, the IMF, the German and British governments, Total Oil, Oxford Univ., and countless other unrelated entities are all "lying" in proclaiming supply/demand shortfall of global energy reserves.



Parroting only the most recent studies which you haven't read, but think support your religious beliefs, does not change the quality of your reading comprehension, or the incoherence of those religious beliefs.


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> Parroting only the most recent studies which you haven't read, but think support your religious beliefs, does not change the quality of your reading comprehension, or the incoherence of those religious beliefs.



Yeah, keep telling yourself that, loser. I've read every word of their reports. It's you who hasn't. If you had a real angle to dispute their unanimous findings that supply/demand shortfall is imminent, you would flesh it out rather than this latest round of surrender.

Anyhoo.... That's the Pentagon, the IEA, the IMF, the US DoE, and on and on and on who disagree with you....  Meanwhile, you're sure you're smarter than all of them. But, you just can't put your finger on why. LOL... 

Once again, just to review: Mankind reached a peak of world conventional oil production somewhere between 2004-2006. Discovery rates the past 40 years do NOT indicate any real increase there, only a decline. We are resorting to far more expensive, heavier oils in order to make up the difference. ... The global markets - buoyed by fiat currency and inflated stock values on the promise of abundant cheap energy - are now panicking in advance of that absolute certainly.

Period. End.

But I'm sure you'll fire back with the promise of magically replenishing oil fields, shale gas expansion, and the wonders under the polar ice cap. Those silver bullets should be along any week now, just in time to stave off the DOW's free fall.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> If you had a real angle to dispute their unanimous findings that supply/demand shortfall is imminent, you would flesh it out rather than this latest round of surrender.



Surrender? Is that what it is called when the single report you claimed to have read could be refuted by the same report, in a single paragraph I quoted?

And since then you have wisely decided to not choose another. 



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Once again, just to review: Mankind reached a peak of world conventional oil production somewhere between 2004-2006.



Sure. Just like we did in 2000. 1991. 1979. 1973. I forget the others, I calculated them back to 1920 once, and it turns out they average about 9 years between peaks over the past century.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Discovery rates the past 40 years do NOT indicate any real increase there, only a decline.



600 billions barrels in reserves around 1980. 600 billion barrels consumed since 1980. 1400 billion barrels in reserve now. Fortunately, while not discovering any oil, we sure discovered alot of oil!



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> But I'm sure you'll fire back with the promise of magically replenishing oil fields, shale gas expansion, and the wonders under the polar ice cap. Those silver bullets should be along any week now, just in time to stave off the DOW's free fall.



Not even a parrot is dumb enough to confuse their religious beliefs with what the DJIA did this week. You must be Jiggsy!


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had a real angle to dispute their unanimous findings that supply/demand shortfall is imminent, you would flesh it out rather than this latest round of surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surrender? Is that what it is called when the single report you claimed to have read could be refuted by the same report, in a single paragraph I quoted?
Click to expand...


Sorry, no it did not refute anything. That's just you re-writing history and hoping onlookers buy your latest round of fraud.



RGR said:


> And since then you have wisely decided to not choose another.



Actually, liar, I confirmed the conclusion with several other reports... Including the Pentagon's 2010 JOE:



> "By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 MBD. ...
> 
> *A severe energy crunch is inevitable without a massive expansion of production and refining capacity.* While it is difficult to predict precisely what economic, political, and strategic effects such a shortfall might produce, it surely would reduce the prospects for growth in both the developing and developed worlds. Such an economic slowdown would exacerbate other unresolved tensions, push fragile and failing states further down the path toward collapse, and perhaps have serious economic impact on both China and India.
> 
> At best, it would lead to periods of harsh economic adjustment. To what extent conservation measures, investments in alternative energy production, and efforts to expand petroleum production from tar sands and shale would mitigate such a period of adjustment is difficult to predict. One should not forget that the Great Depression spawned a number of totalitarian regimes that sought economic prosperity for their nations by ruthless conquest."



Gee, sounds about what we've increasingly seen since early 2010, and getting worse. 

Oops, here's a few more who must all be in on "the conspiracy:"

A think tank of military experts close to the White House published a study in October that emphasized the necessity for the American armed forces to exit from petroleum between now and 2040. The Center for a new American Century explicitly makes reference to a near-term decline in the world's production capacity in black gold.

Must all be lying, or dumb. But why? 



RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, just to review: Mankind reached a peak of world conventional oil production somewhere between 2004-2006.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Just like we did in 2000. 1991. 1979. 1973. I forget the others, I calculated them back to 1920 once, and it turns out they average about 9 years between peaks over the past century.
Click to expand...


Gosh, all my adversary here can cling to is to straw man past alleged "peaks" that no one in this discussion has ever claimed. Nevermind that the guy kicked his ass all over this sub-forum has reminded readers that the difference between then and now? Discovery rates have plummeted. But never fear, Drebbin here can just play fun with numbers!:



RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Discovery rates the past 40 years do NOT indicate any real increase there, only a decline.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 600 billions barrels in reserves around 1980. 600 billion barrels consumed since 1980. 1400 billion barrels in reserve now. Fortunately, while not discovering any oil, we sure discovered alot of oil!
Click to expand...


Cooked 1980s OPEC books and heavy oil reserves notwithstanding, of course. The depth of your fraud and obfuscation is boundless.



RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I'm sure you'll fire back with the promise of magically replenishing oil fields, shale gas expansion, and the wonders under the polar ice cap. Those silver bullets should be along any week now, just in time to stave off the DOW's free fall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not even a parrot is dumb enough to confuse their religious beliefs with what the DJIA did this week. You must be Jiggsy!
Click to expand...


LOL....   There is absolutely no doubt in any rational person's mind that the credit bubble is directly related to the end of cheap energy. Only a contributor here with absolutely no idea of energy's relation to the global economy (population: you) with insist otherwise.

Ah well, toolbox...  Here's another "conspirator" fleshing it all out for you:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNLMdE8pm_A]Peak Oil - David Strahan BBC Newsnight Interview - YouTube[/ame]

Let's see how many times RGR here can ironically type the word parrot over and over again while consistently missing the underlying point.

STFU and GTFO


----------



## BoycottTheday

Exxon, U.S. Government Duel Over Huge Oil Find - WSJ.com


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> There is absolutely no doubt in any rational person's mind that the credit bubble is directly related to the end of cheap energy. Only a contributor here with absolutely no idea of energy's relation to the global economy (population: you) with insist otherwise.



No rational person confuses a peak oilers religious beliefs with the overall topic of energy.  Energy isn't just cheap, it is free you halfwit. Stick your hand outside the window on a sunny day and experience it for yourself.

Just because your religion has forced you to accept that some particular subset of the energy story takes precedence over all others doesn't mean your priests are right, only that you are stupid enough to have fallen for the propaganda.

Stop parroting and think for yourself already. Stop pretending oil is synonymous with energy. Don't you have a church meeting somewhere missing one of the gullible?


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> No rational person confuses a peak oilers religious beliefs with the overall topic of energy.  Energy isn't just cheap, it is free you halfwit. Stick your hand outside the window on a sunny day and experience it for yourself.



LOL. When all else fails, just play a semantics game and switch to the literal definition of "energy," and play ignorant to the very obvious context we're talking about here.

You really are a true dick, aren't you?



RGR said:


> Just because your religion has forced you to accept that some particular subset of the energy story takes precedence over all others doesn't mean your priests are right, only that you are stupid enough to have fallen for the propaganda.



Still waiting, then, for you to allude to the source of energy that is more efficient, versatile and abundant than conventional crude. You haven't provided it, because you know it doesn't exist., and that sends you into full dick mode.



RGR said:


> Stop parroting and think for yourself already.



Delicious irony here.



RGR said:


> Stop pretending oil is synonymous with energy.



For the practical purposes of a modern industrial society, and the markets that make them work, it most certainly is.

You're the one vaguely insisting its replaceable. Yet you can't quite quantify or qualify what that replacement will be. 

You truly suck at this.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop pretending oil is synonymous with energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the practical purposes of a modern industrial society, and the markets that make them work, it most certainly is.
Click to expand...


Then not only are you a parrot, you are an ignorant fool as well. While the peak oil religion certainly needs ignorant foot soldiers to spread their dogma, go back and tell them we would prefer to have someone with a brain to converse with.


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop pretending oil is synonymous with energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the practical purposes of a modern industrial society, and the markets that make them work, it most certainly is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then not only are you a parrot, you are an ignorant fool as well. While the peak oil religion certainly needs ignorant foot soldiers to spread their dogma, go back and tell them we would prefer to have someone with a brain to converse with.
Click to expand...


LOL!

White flag accepted. Coward.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> While the peak oil religion certainly needs ignorant foot soldiers to spread their dogma, go back and tell them we would prefer to have someone with a brain to converse with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> White flag accepted. Coward.
Click to expand...


Isn't there a peak oil congregation missing its mascot?


----------



## KissMy

The peak oil brigade is leading us into bad policymaking on energy



> There is enough oil and gas (and coal too) to fry the planet several times over. The problem is there may be too much fossil fuel, not too little, and that fossil fuel prices might be too low, not too high.


----------



## JiggsCasey

KissMy said:


> The peak oil brigade is leading us into bad policymaking on energy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is enough oil and gas (and coal too) to fry the planet several times over. The problem is there may be too much fossil fuel, not too little, and that fossil fuel prices might be too low, not too high.
Click to expand...


Yes, your team keeps saying that over and over again. But when it's pointed out to you that heavy synthetics from bitumen and kerogen are not actually oil, you keep glossing over like a special education student.

It's not our fault you have no idea what net energy refers to. Just look at RGR for an example of a dog chasing his tail.

Shall we review the guardian threads that acknowledge peak is already here? LOL


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> There is enough oil and gas (and coal too) to fry the planet several times over. The problem is there may be too much fossil fuel, not too little, and that fossil fuel prices might be too low, not too high.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, your team keeps saying that over and over again. But when it's pointed out to you that heavy synthetics from bitumen and kerogen are not actually oil, you keep glossing over like a special education student.
Click to expand...


The people who don't know the difference between reserves and production, don't know that trading 5 barrels of oil for 2 is damn stupid, and can't take the time to learn why these things matter, also don't know that they have already put some bitumen based fuels into their cars, so it doesn't matter WHERE they start out if the final product works.

Like flying airplanes on natural gas...the same wizards of ignorance just don't understand how the form of a thing can be changed and swapped around. Call them retarded special education students.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> It's not our fault you have no idea what net energy refers to. Just look at RGR for an example of a dog chasing his tail.



RGR is too busy right now to educate the incompetents who can't even do EROEI math, and even if they could are still too ignorant to understand why it doesn't matter. The SPE national is in Denver next week, stop by and learn something useful parrot. Just don't open your mouth, lest the entire world of people who do this for a living deafen you with their laughter at what passes for knowledge among the amateurs.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Shall we review the guardian threads that acknowledge peak is already here? LOL



Which peak oil? Ive lost count of how many we've been through over the years.


----------



## KissMy

They keep saying we are running out - but China passed US on its rate of carbon emissions. China will pass US per capita carbon emission rate in 5 years. There population is tripple ours. Somehow the world found enough to power 3 more USA's.


----------



## Mr. H.

RIGZONE - Harvard Study Refutes Concerns over Oil Becoming a Scarce Commodity

_Global oil supply capacity is growing at an unprecedented level, and could result in an overproduction glut and steep dip in oil prices, according to a June 2012 study from Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.

Contrary to the idea among some that global oil supply is running out, additional production of 17.6 million barrels of oil per day (bopd) could come online by 2020, boosting global production capacity to 110.6 million bopd, even with depletion rates for currently producing oilfields and reserve growth._


----------



## JiggsCasey

Mr. H. said:


> RIGZONE - Harvard Study Refutes Concerns over Oil Becoming a Scarce Commodity
> 
> _Global oil supply capacity is growing at an unprecedented level, and could result in an overproduction glut and steep dip in oil prices, according to a June 2012 study from Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.
> 
> Contrary to the idea among some that global oil supply is running out, additional production of 17.6 million barrels of oil per day (bopd) could come online by 2020, boosting global production capacity to 110.6 million bopd, even with depletion rates for currently producing oilfields and reserve growth._



FAIL!

But no surprise you'd run right to your favorite discussion forum and post it. Probably didn't even read the whole thing, did you? .... Maugeri - an oil industry shill - has been getting raped for this horrifically flawed "report" all summer. He doesn't even convey what the decline rates are for the math he's allegedly using.

If you believe the world will produce 110 million barrels per day within 8 years - as this fraud is attempting to pass off - you have a difficult time applying any semblance of critical analysis. I understand how you guys desperately want this crap to be true, but the industry analysts are laughing at you.

Maugeri is attempting to assert that unconventional, heavy oil production will multiply by a factor of 5 within 8 years, while still somehow making up for dying existing capacity declining at a rate of 4% per year. ...  We'll NEVER produce 110 million barrels per day of liquid fuel that soon. NEVER.

Response to Leonardo Maugeri's Decline Rate Assumptions in "Oil: The Next Revolution"

New Energy Report from Harvard Makes Unsupportable Assumptions

Unconventional Oil is NOT a Game Changer	

The oil industry repackages the fake abundance story (from the late 1990s)

Monbiot peak oil u-turn based on bad science, worse maths

and the absolute best one:

Don&#8217;t count on revolution in oil supply
by Sadad al-Husseini, former VP of exploration with Saudi Aramco

_In regard to capacity declines, the report appears to confuse oil reserves depletion with capacity declines. In the world of petroleum engineering, depletion quantifies residual reserves in the ground, while declines define a reservoir&#8217;s ability to sustain a given level of production over time. 

The report takes exception to the IEA&#8217;s 2008 estimate of an average 6.7% global oil capacity decline and offers an equivalent estimate of less than 2% per year. This low estimate is apparently based on the observation of historical production rates from major oil producing countries. It is not clear how the author extracted the convoluted effects of offsetting market volatility, spare capacity utilization, natural production declines, and ongoing new capacity investments from such historical trends.

... Not surprisingly, many oil executives have stated publicly that incremental oil supplies are now in a precarious balance with capacity declines and will remain so for years to come.

*Much as all the stakeholders in the energy industry would like to be optimistic, it isn&#8217;t an oil glut by 2020 that is keeping oil prices as high as they are. It is the reality that the oil sector has been pushed to the limit of its capabilities* and that this difficult challenge will dominate energy markets for the rest of the decade.​_


----------



## JiggsCasey

Oh, and here's the author of your dumb link admitting he got his math wrong:

OIL GLUT FORECASTER MAUGERI ADMITS DUFF MATHS


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> Oh, and here's the author of your dumb link admitting he got his math wrong:
> 
> OIL GLUT FORECASTER MAUGERI ADMITS DUFF MATHS



Jiggsy! WHAZZUP! Missed our favorite religious nutbag!

Hey...noticed that we haven't run out yet? Got myself a Volt, doesn't even MATTER what numbers they post anymore on those crazy little billboards, I recommend you get one, join the Church of Scientology or the Moonies or some other cult and whine about something else already.


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> Jiggsy! WHAZZUP!



Oh, not much. Just busy intellectually raping dishonest douchebags on this topic in real life for a while, rather than just internet trolls.



RGR said:


> Missed our favorite religious nutbag!



Missed you too, our favorite flat earther who has fatal trouble with basic arithmetic.



RGR said:


> Hey...noticed that we haven't run out yet?



Well, besides the fact that I wrote some 50 times that it's not about "running out," great job being dishonest on the point, ... still. Fraud's gonna fraud. It's what you do.



RGR said:


> Got myself a Volt, doesn't even MATTER what numbers they post anymore on those crazy little billboards, I recommend you get one, join the Church of Scientology or the Moonies or some other cult and whine about something else already.



LOL... you're such a troll. Too bad the Volt (which is failing badly) doesn't change the overall condition you deny is even happening.

There's no reason to act all butt-hurt because the industry's latest shill "report" went swirling down the toilet this summer. It's not my fault he sucks at math just like you do.

But why concern yourself with actual numbers when you can just keep acting like an asshat, tout how wealthy you are, straw man the entire premise being asserted, and pretend (with great irony) that we're the cultists. Classic.

We'll never get to 110 million barrels per day by 2020.  You know it as well as I do. It's just that your dumb-ass "solution" to that certainty is to spew "so? get a bike."

Holy crap. Out of touch much?


----------



## KissMy

So Jiggsy, what's going to get us first? - Peak Oil or Global Warming?


----------



## westwall

JiggsCasey said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The peak oil brigade is leading us into bad policymaking on energy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is enough oil and gas (and coal too) to fry the planet several times over. The problem is there may be too much fossil fuel, not too little, and that fossil fuel prices might be too low, not too high.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, your team keeps saying that over and over again. But when it's pointed out to you that heavy synthetics from bitumen and kerogen are not actually oil, you keep glossing over like a special education student.
> 
> It's not our fault you have no idea what net energy refers to. Just look at RGR for an example of a dog chasing his tail.
> 
> Shall we review the guardian threads that acknowledge peak is already here? LOL
Click to expand...








Ummmm but they work the same so how does that support your argument?  You keep making these claims so when is the price of gas going to jump to 20 bucks a gallon?  So far the prices we are seeing are based on governmental intervention not on lack of supply.

So when is disaster going to happen?  I've been waiting for it to happen for 45 years now (from when I first heard the gospel of peak oil) and so far no joy.  I'm prepared for the zombie apocalypse so come on, get it going!


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey...noticed that we haven't run out yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, besides the fact that I wrote some 50 times that it's not about "running out," great job being dishonest on the point, ... still. Fraud's gonna fraud. It's what you do.
Click to expand...


Yeah, but the only reason you religious fanatics don't call it running out anymore is because of all the other times running out was claimed and it never happened. Now you call it "peak" and try and stretch that into the same effects....except it doesn't work so well, because what peak apparently means is people can buy tanker trucks of fuel if they wish. Sort of takes the sting out of the entire "running out" side effects you guys have been praying for.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> We'll never get to 110 million barrels per day by 2020.  You know it as well as I do. It's just that your dumb-ass "solution" to that certainty is to spew "so? get a bike."



I have a bike. 4 of them to be exact. And scooters, and a motorcycle, and a few cars as well. The right tool for the job grandpa always said. But I really like my peak oil solving Volt.


----------



## JiggsCasey

KissMy said:


> So Jiggsy, what's going to get us first? - Peak Oil or Global Warming?



considering the symptoms were already dealing with from both? Tough call. 

Good observation on your part, I agree: It's very neck-and-neck.




westwall said:


> Ummmm but they work the same so how does that support your argument?



Because the new kind requires exponentially more to do the same job? You're alert when you absorb this thread, yes? We're hundreds of posts in, and most of us can agree that aspect of the discussion was made clear a long time ago.



westwall said:


> You keep making these claims so when is the price of gas going to jump to 20 bucks a gallon?



False dichotomy calling.



westwall said:


> So far the prices we are seeing are based on governmental intervention not on lack of supply.



LOL. Maybe 20 cents worth of it, at most. .... The prices we are seeing are based on geology and the world's insatiable, rapacious appetite for the prize. It is the greatest, most efficient, most versatile energy source we've ever found. Prices will get worse, and people like you will just keep telling yourselves the long-term price increase is all artificial and mere conspiracy. 

Fail. 



westwall said:


> So when is disaster going to happen?  I've been waiting for it to happen for 45 years now (from when I first heard the gospel of peak oil) and so far no joy.  I'm prepared for the zombie apocalypse so come on, get it going!



I have confidence you didn't really know much about it until this forum, and have been learning as you go along. And what you did grasp in your past, you argued against a straw man opponent in your own mind and beat him. Good job.

You don't even know what this is about,  I can tell by the way your argument has adapted in this thread and others like it. This is especially clear in the way you ask for clarification on some of the most basic concepts already discussed many times over.

I have a feeling my vote will be canceling out yours. I'm grateful for the opportunity.


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey...noticed that we haven't run out yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, besides the fact that I wrote some 50 times that it's not about "running out," great job being dishonest on the point, ... still. Fraud's gonna fraud. It's what you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but the only reason you religious fanatics don't call it running out anymore is because of all the other times running out was claimed and it never happened. Now you call it "peak" and try and stretch that into the same effects....except it doesn't work so well, because what peak apparently means is people can buy tanker trucks of fuel if they wish. Sort of takes the sting out of the entire "running out" side effects you guys have been praying for.
Click to expand...


LOL. I never claimed peak oil would arrive at any sooner date than it already is. Now. 

So now you're asserting what my belief system must have been before you met me here so you can work backwards from a conclusion in your own goofy mind. Could you be more infantile at this point? 

I never claimed it was "running out before." Neither did the authors at MIT in their book "Limits to Growth." You never read it, so you wouldn't actually know what they claimed back then. It was alluding to this past decade and into the next one. We reached peak in 2005. They were right then, and they're being proven right with each passing month. We'll never get to 110 million barrels per day by 2020. 

Let me know how you and westfail fare up against that straw man you've created. I'll be over here arguing the same position I've never wavered from since the start.

McFail.



RGR said:


> I have a bike. 4 of them to be exact. And scooters, and a motorcycle, and a few cars as well. The right tool for the job grandpa always said. But I really like my peak oil solving Volt.



So awesome. Every time you flaunt your alleged wealth, you look like more and more of an asshat, and the irony becomes more and more amusing. You embody the out-of-touch free marketeer to a T. 

In the end, your entire argument in this exchange has retreated to the logical final rallying point: *"OK, you're right it's getting more expensive. So who gives a crap? I can afford it. If the savages who make less than me can't afford it, fuck em. I'll be fine, so your argument is dumb."* It's the same every time when dealing with you guys. 

Keep being you.


----------



## westwall

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, besides the fact that I wrote some 50 times that it's not about "running out," great job being dishonest on the point, ... still. Fraud's gonna fraud. It's what you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but the only reason you religious fanatics don't call it running out anymore is because of all the other times running out was claimed and it never happened. Now you call it "peak" and try and stretch that into the same effects....except it doesn't work so well, because what peak apparently means is people can buy tanker trucks of fuel if they wish. Sort of takes the sting out of the entire "running out" side effects you guys have been praying for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL. I never claimed peak oil would arrive at any sooner date than it already is. Now.
> 
> So now you're asserting what my belief system must have been before you met me here so you can work backwards from a conclusion in your own goofy mind. Could you be more infantile at this point?
> 
> I never claimed it was "running out before." Neither did the authors at MIT in their book "Limits to Growth." You never read it, so you wouldn't actually know what they claimed back then. It was alluding to this past decade and into the next one. We reached peak in 2005. They were right then, and they're being proven right with each passing month. We'll never get to 110 million barrels per day by 2020.
> 
> Let me know how you and westfail fare up against that straw man you've created. I'll be over here arguing the same position I've never wavered from since the start.
> 
> McFail.
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a bike. 4 of them to be exact. And scooters, and a motorcycle, and a few cars as well. The right tool for the job grandpa always said. But I really like my peak oil solving Volt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So awesome. Every time you flaunt your alleged wealth, you look like more and more of an asshat, and the irony becomes more and more amusing. You embody the out-of-touch free marketeer to a T.
> 
> In the end, your entire argument in this exchange has retreated to the logical final rallying point: *"OK, you're right it's getting more expensive. So who gives a crap? I can afford it. If the savages who make less than me can't afford it, fuck em. I'll be fine, so your argument is dumb."* It's the same every time when dealing with you guys.
> 
> Keep being you.
Click to expand...






And all the while more and more natural gas and oil is discovered.  But hey, keep on keepin on.  In the next 100 years or so you may get it right.


"Highlights of the report include an increase in gas supplies that is the largest in the 44-year history of reports from the Potential Gas Committee. Estimated gas reserves rose to 2.07 quadrillion cubic feet in 2008, from 1.5 quadrillion cubic feet in 2006 when the last report was issued."

Potential Gas Committee Report Places U.S. Gas Reserves At 2.07 Quadrillion Cubic Feet


----------



## KissMy

Wow! - Didn't these wackos say that global oil production peaked in 2005? According to the peak oil doomers it should have been lights out by now.  I wonder how global oil production keeps on rising? Are they shipping oil in from Mars?


----------



## westwall

KissMy said:


> Wow! - Didn't these wackos say that global oil production peaked in 2005? According to the peak oil doomers it should have been lights out by now.  I wonder how global oil production keeps on rising? Are they shipping oil in from Mars?








Actually I hear the oil companies figured out how to warp time so they go back to the mesozoic and harvest the dinosaur farts right at the source!


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> I have confidence you didn't really know much about it until this forum, and have been learning as you go along.



Pot..meet kettle. Jiggsy, you kill me man.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> LOL. I never claimed peak oil would arrive at any sooner date than it already is. Now.



Sure, not you Jiggsy.I was talking more about people who know something about oil, like when Hubbert predicted peak US oil before 1950, or Colin Campbell called it in 1989. The morons in the pews just play kick the can, because they have neither the cajones nor education nor experience to actually KNOW anything.....all they are good for is parroting (i.e. singing from the hymn book).



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> I never claimed it was "running out before."



See above. No one cares what the clueless choir thinks, or in this case, YOU. It is the priests who matter, not the clueless parrots who can't do anything but...parrot.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> So awesome. Every time you flaunt your alleged wealth, you look like more and more of an asshat, and the irony becomes more and more amusing. You embody the out-of-touch free marketeer to a T.



Wealth? Where do you come from, Somalia? This is America, middle class families with multiple drivers tend to have multiple cars, some motorized toys, etc etc. Just because your demonstrated lack of intellectual rigor has led you to a poverty stricken lifestyle is no reason to assume that those who do have functioning neurons are rich.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Keep being you.



But of course. And you keep doing the same, this place is pretty tame without our favorite religious parrot.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Thank the Fed for high gas prices and small cereal boxes


----------

