# 2.5 Trillion barrels of Oil Shale Oil



## Eightball

Ok........Drudge this morning said, "$87.00/barrel"

I still recall reading that the rough and dirty extraction price with oil shale was between $80-$90.00/barrel.  

Now we have here in the USA an estimated 2.5 trillion barrels of oil locked up in oil shale.  So we open-up a few "token" off-shore areas by the President, and everyone is suppose to be wetting their collective pants that we are on the way to energy independence from OPEC.    Oh........give me a break!  Are the "sheep" really buying into this?

This 2.5 trillion barrels far-exceeds the total oil reserves of the Middle East, if not Saudi Arabia alone.

Now if we have extraction prices from shale at the above prices, you and I know that technology/research will not stop there, but there should be coming down the pipe, even cheaper methods of extraction.

Why, oh why, isn't this administration "green lighting" this area of energy potential with gusto.

Ethanol is a joke!  If we were to do as Brazil and start agri-farming, grow-able land to produce Ethanol, we would have to use every inch/acre of present land that is producing edible crops for our nation.  We don't have sugar cane climate here in the U.S..  Brazil is close to the equator, and is very humid/tropical, which is ideal for high-yield ethanol crops.

Sure, theres nothing wrong with bio-fuels......but they can't make but a golf ball sized dent in our energy consumption/needs.  There's only so much fast food/restaurant oil to be had, and the way the government is going after fatting foods to save our collective lives the amount of useable cooking oils will not expand with this economy IMO.
*****
Why Not Nuke Plants?:  They're one heck of a lot cleaner than the cleanest coal burning plants.  Interestingly, I listened to a notable scientist, Dr. Bill Wattenberg, who has worked and Livermore Labs in weapons research, and also has been an independent inventer, and has been contracted by both state and Federal Gov, agencies to help "invent" ASAP methods/devices during emergency situations such as, temporary bridge replacements, mine sweeping equipment......etc, etc...

Wattenberg had emphatically said, over the years, that the amount of radioactive isotopes emitted into the atmosphere by even clean coal burning power plants is so immense, and health/dangerous.

Wattenberg has been an nuke power plant advocate for years, and has tried and tried to fight the panic, and b.s. poured out by the "left"  and "green" wingnuts about the horrors of nuclear power.

France:  They are on their merry way to independence from OPEC.  Roughly 70% of Frances' electric power comes from nuke power plants.  France actually produces an excess of electicity, and is able to sell it off to other countrys' grids.  I also understand that France is stockpiling hydrogen, as their excess electricity allows them to "crack" H2O, into hyrogen gas.
******
Us or the U.S..   Our President, gave in to Harry Reid, and closed Yucca Mountain.  This was a major multi$$$$$$ project that was designed to store our nations' spent nuclear fuels with a margin of safety that far exceeded the risks.   Yucca Mountain was geologically studied for dangerous seismic faults that could rupture storage and cause dangerous ground water leakage of nuclear or hot wastes.  

Containerization of spent fuels is so-beyond adequate, as the containers will far exceed the spent half-lives of these materials.  Never the less, the wingnut, greenie crowd still holds sway over a certain major political party in our country, and I mean major lobbying pressure probably second to none.  As a result, U.S. energy independence is held hostage to archaic, 19th century mentality/dreams........that "utopia" for all Americans is the destruction of industrialization, and the adoption of an agrarian mentality, and culture.

I'm an idealist........but I"m also a realist.  We have a party/administration in power that has a skewed, and illogical mentality and outlook on the future of this country.  Nothing they propose encourages entrepreneurialism, but in fact hinders or destroys it.

Entrepreneurialism is the unspoken swear word of this administration..........................Unless it fits into their illogical paradigm of American life according to their bible.

I live in Silicon Valley, the birth place of R&D on the nano-scale like no other place in our country.  What is it now?  It is empty parking lots..........building for lease banners everywhere.  

Tech support goes to India now.   For years here in Silicon Valley we had an incredible influx of Indian Nationals who were highly educated computer engineers for the most-part.  Many gained legal citizenship, and have continued to contribute to our economy with hard working ethics...........But............now even our R&D is being jobbed-out to faraway India and other parts of the world.  Manufacturing of hardware has gone to the far reaches of the world.  That's ok...........but...........R&D???  That's the bread and butter of "entrepreneurialism"!   

We were a country of innovation!   So what's our claim to fame now?  Oh we make "negative sum gain" windmills, and residential solar panels.    Big whoopee!  We are the home of Tesla motors that only the "Sean Penns" of the world can afford.

Oh..............I could go on and on and on.............
********


----------



## uscitizen

Ahh the shale oil scam.

Ever lived in an area that has been strip mined?


----------



## Eightball

uscitizen said:


> Ahh the shale oil scam.
> 
> Ever lived in an area that has been strip mined?



Ever seen what proper land/enviro management looks like where strip mining has been done and finished?

Your bringing up past stuff, that isn't allowed, and is monitored by the EPA.

Some of the most beautiful areas of re-planting, and soil restoration is being done where strip mining has been completed.
******
Bringing up the past, just kills what good can and is being done.


----------



## uscitizen

Eightball said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh the shale oil scam.
> 
> Ever lived in an area that has been strip mined?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever seen what proper land/enviro management looks like where strip mining has been done and finished?
> 
> Your bringing up past stuff, that isn't allowed, and is monitored by the EPA.
> 
> Some of the most beautiful areas of re-planting, and soil restoration is being done where strip mining has been completed.
> ******
> Bringing up the past, just kills what good can and is being done.
Click to expand...


What bull have you been reading?  I live in eastern KY. 
I have seen the streams run as black slurries from strip mining.

I also remember the last time the shale oil bollocks ran rampant here.
Lots ripped off and nothing came of it.


----------



## Terral

Hi Eightball:



Eightball said:


> Ok........Drudge this morning said, "$87.00/barrel"
> 
> I still recall reading that the rough and dirty extraction price with oil shale was between $80-$90.00/barrel.
> 
> Now we have here in the USA an estimated 2.5 trillion barrels of oil locked up in oil shale.  So we open-up a few "token" off-shore areas by the President, and everyone is suppose to be wetting their collective pants that we are on the way to energy independence from OPEC.    Oh........give me a break!  Are the "sheep" really buying into this?...



There are *billions of barrels of oil under Gull Island, Alaska* (story) that the Govt and Big Oil does not want you to know about. Lindsey Williams knows all about it ...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbakN7SLdbk]The Energy Non-Crisis By Lindsey Williams 1/8[/ame]

GL,

Terral


----------



## uscitizen

Every McDonalds in the USA is built atop vast reserves of oil!


----------



## Eightball

uscitizen said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh the shale oil scam.
> 
> Ever lived in an area that has been strip mined?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever seen what proper land/enviro management looks like where strip mining has been done and finished?
> 
> Your bringing up past stuff, that isn't allowed, and is monitored by the EPA.
> 
> Some of the most beautiful areas of re-planting, and soil restoration is being done where strip mining has been completed.
> ******
> Bringing up the past, just kills what good can and is being done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What bull have you been reading?  I live in eastern KY.
> I have seen the streams run as black slurries from strip mining.
> 
> I also remember the last time the shale oil bollocks ran rampant here.
> Lots ripped off and nothing came of it.
Click to expand...


Your part of the country doesn't have oil shale reserves..........That yuck in your streams is from unregulated coal, and other types of strip mining.

Again, is past atrocities of unregulated mining...........

The EPA won't and doesn't allow that now.  Have you seen what good, and wise land management techniques result-in after strip mining is completed?  If you did, you wouldn't be posting the past yuck of unregulation of mining.


----------



## Old Rocks

Eightball said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh the shale oil scam.
> 
> Ever lived in an area that has been strip mined?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever seen what proper land/enviro management looks like where strip mining has been done and finished?
> 
> Your bringing up past stuff, that isn't allowed, and is monitored by the EPA.
> 
> Some of the most beautiful areas of re-planting, and soil restoration is being done where strip mining has been completed.
> ******
> Bringing up the past, just kills what good can and is being done.
Click to expand...


I have a cousin that lives in Bozeman, Montana. He has traveled all over Montana. You start talking about proper land/enviro management to him, and he will go livid. You see, even though he is a conservative, he has seen what the energy companies claim, and what they actually do. 

Montana Coal, Part 2 &mdash; Montana Environmental Information Center

This is not what happens in reality.  Montana coal mines encompass just over 62,000 permitted acres of which 36,632 acres have actually been disturbed by mining.  Of those 36,632 acres only 6,255or just 17%  have been backfilled, regraded, and had topsoil applied.  Even worse, in the 30 years since Montanas coal law was passed only 712 acres, or just under 2% of all land disturbed by mining, have achieved full reclamation.


----------



## Old Rocks

Eightball said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever seen what proper land/enviro management looks like where strip mining has been done and finished?
> 
> Your bringing up past stuff, that isn't allowed, and is monitored by the EPA.
> 
> Some of the most beautiful areas of re-planting, and soil restoration is being done where strip mining has been completed.
> ******
> Bringing up the past, just kills what good can and is being done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What bull have you been reading?  I live in eastern KY.
> I have seen the streams run as black slurries from strip mining.
> 
> I also remember the last time the shale oil bollocks ran rampant here.
> Lots ripped off and nothing came of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your part of the country doesn't have oil shale reserves..........That yuck in your streams is from unregulated coal, and other types of strip mining.
> 
> Again, is past atrocities of unregulated mining...........
> 
> The EPA won't and doesn't allow that now.  Have you seen what good, and wise land management techniques result-in after strip mining is completed?  If you did, you wouldn't be posting the past yuck of unregulation of mining.
Click to expand...


Man, this is getting old!

The fly ash spill in Tennessee;
Inside the Tennessee Coal Ash Spill - Newsweek.com

Where are you going to get the water for the processing of oil shale? How are you going to heat that shale without putting huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere? 

And the claims of reclamation by the mining companies are at present just claims. About 2% true in Montana.


----------



## editec

EVery solution has a problem.

Shale oil recovery demands on hell of a lot of water.

And one hell of a lot of that shale oil is nowhere near major water sources, either.

There is NO free lunch, folks.


----------



## JiggsCasey

uscitizen said:


> Ahh the shale oil scam.
> 
> Ever lived in an area that has been strip mined?



yes, what would a good thread about global energy be without mention of shale or Gull Island. Classic.



Eightball said:


> Ok........Drudge this morning said, "$87.00/barrel"
> 
> I still recall reading that the rough and dirty extraction price with oil shale was between $80-$90.00/barrel.
> 
> ...
> 
> Oh..............I could go on and on and on.............
> ********



Oh, I'm sure you could.  There's plenty of hubris out there to cut and paste.

extracting shale "cost effectively" at $90 barrel is a pipedream figure that 'disconsiders' several factors in its little formula, most especially environmental costs that would have to be mitigated.

are you prepared to strip mine the rocky mountains? you are aware that the jet stream goes east, right?


----------



## sitarro

JiggsCasey said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh the shale oil scam.
> 
> Ever lived in an area that has been strip mined?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, what would a good thread about global energy be without mention of shale or Gull Island. Classic.
> 
> 
> 
> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok........Drudge this morning said, "$87.00/barrel"
> 
> I still recall reading that the rough and dirty extraction price with oil shale was between $80-$90.00/barrel.
> 
> ...
> 
> Oh..............I could go on and on and on.............
> ********
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm sure you could.  There's plenty of hubris out there to cut and paste.
> 
> extracting shale "cost effectively" at $90 barrel is a pipedream figure that 'disconsiders' several factors in its little formula, most especially environmental costs that would have to be mitigated.
> 
> are you prepared to strip mine the rocky mountains? you are aware that the jet stream goes east, right?
Click to expand...


What is your solution to the price of fuel that will no doubt hit at least $3.50 - $4.00 per gallon this summer? The "president" says he doesn't have a problem with that or even higher prices for fuel, why would he, he burns 2,500 gallons of jet fuel per hour every time he decides to take Air Force One on another useless campaign jaunt and doesn't think twice about it. The price of gas is affecting the poor the worst, the poor certainly can't afford to go out and buy an overpriced hybrid or electric car........ what is your solution? What is the solution from the democrats? Wind? Sure, been done for decades, doesn't work worth a shit. Nuclear, dims have fought that idea for years ever since China Syndrome came out......... it would take years to bring nuclear online. What is the solution?


----------



## JiggsCasey

sitarro said:


> What is your solution to the price of fuel that will no doubt hit at least $3.50 - $4.00 per gallon this summer? The "president" says he doesn't have a problem with that or even higher prices for fuel
> 
> ......... it would take years to bring nuclear online. What is the solution?



there IS no solution.

there, i said it. ... "problems have solutions. predicaments can only be managed. this is a predicament." - Chris Martenson.

still want answers? ... i dunno, take a sustainability class this summer at your local college. 

get very local, meet your neighbors, reinforce a sense of community. ... find out the crisis and distribution centers in your area, and the protocol for your municipality in the event of a serious energy shock, or other civilian crisis. ... call in your dollar-denominated investments as much as they'll allow. ... buy metals, tradable goods. ...


----------



## editec

> Now if we have extraction prices from shale at the above prices, you and I know that technology/research will not stop there, but there should be coming down the pipe, even cheaper methods of extraction.
> 
> Why, oh why, isn't this administration "green lighting" this area of energy potential with gusto.


You're assuming that shale oil isn't already being extracted.

It is, but there's a lot more to exploit.

*The thing stopping shale oil from fully being exploited is the market forces themselves.*

Companies are quite correctly reluctant to invest the enormous cost to set up the extraction and distribution system because why?

*Because the profit margin on existing oil is so enormous.*

For example...the extraction cost at the pump cost of existing oil in many cases is about $5.

That means that if somebody invest in shale oil industry and goes on line, _their competition can drive them broke by reducing the cost of oil just enough to bleed them dry, and STILL make a huge profit._

You get it?

The _market_ has decided, at least for now, not to exploit the shale oil that you imagine the government won't let them take.

Not Obama, not the liberal, not the tree huggers.../the MARKET FORCES are stopping those developments


----------



## JiggsCasey

editec said:


> Now if we have extraction prices from shale at the above prices, you and I know that technology/research will not stop there, but there should be coming down the pipe, even cheaper methods of extraction.
> 
> Why, oh why, isn't this administration "green lighting" this area of energy potential with gusto.
> 
> 
> 
> You're assuming that shale oil isn't already being extracted.
> 
> It is, but there's a lot more to exploit.
> 
> *The thing stopping shale oil from fully being exploited is the market forces themselves.*
> 
> Companies are quite correctly reluctant to invest the enormous cost to set up the extraction and distribution system because why?
> 
> *Because the profit margin on existing oil is so enormous.*
> 
> For example...the extraction cost at the pump cost of existing oil in many cases is about $5.
> 
> That means that if somebody invest in shale oil industry and goes on line, _their competition can drive them broke by reducing the cost of oil just enough to bleed them dry, and STILL make a huge profit._
> 
> You get it?
> 
> The _market_ has decided, at least for now, not to exploit the shale oil that you imagine the government won't let them take.
> 
> Not Obama, not the liberal, not the tree huggers.../the MARKET FORCES are stopping those developments
Click to expand...


it will never be economically viable so as to sustain growth.

but that won't stop them from trying when things get really bad. 

after all... must.... keep.... feeding... that.... beast.


----------



## Big Fitz

> Your bringing up past stuff, that isn't allowed, and is monitored by the EPA.



Only when politically convenient.


----------



## Big Fitz

Coal gassification takes a price per gallon of refined gasoline at $1.60.
Shale Oil is about the same, no greater than $2.00/gallon refined gas.

So... you think that's too much to pay for gas?

Of course, we could just drill for what is available and getting the econazis out of the way and have prices REALLY drop.


----------



## Eightball

Big Fitz said:


> Coal gassification takes a price per barrel of $1.60.
> Shale Oil is about the same, no greater than $2.00
> 
> So... you think that's too much to pay for gas?
> 
> Of course, we could just drill for what is available and getting the econazis out of the way and have prices REALLY drop.



Read from more than one source from the news, that oil extraction from shale was running roughly, $80.00-$90.00/Barrel.

Is your price per oil/barrel or the refined gasoline price per gallon?


----------



## Big Fitz

oops.  price per gallon, refined gasoline.


----------



## JWBooth

Yes, there is an incredible amount of oil trapped in shale, and under the best of circumstances it can be captured and refined in the $80 - $90 range.

Where this shale is, isn't the best of circumstances for shale recovery, unless there is an underground aquifer nearby that hasn't been discovered yet, and somebody suddenly decides to donate an nuclear power plant nearby to produce the electricity to produce the steam from the aquifer to cook the oil out of the shale.


----------



## Big Fitz

JWBooth said:


> Yes, there is an incredible amount of oil trapped in shale, and under the best of circumstances it can be captured and refined in the $80 - $90 range.
> 
> Where this shale is, isn't the best of circumstances for shale recovery, unless there is an underground aquifer nearby that hasn't been discovered yet, and somebody suddenly decides to donate an nuclear power plant nearby to produce the electricity to produce the steam from the aquifer to cook the oil out of the shale.


and just think.  The price for finding, pumping and refining is only going to go down.  Why?  Because that's the way technology has worked from the beginning of time.  

Experience begets wisdom.  
Wisdom begets efficiency.  
Efficiency begets economy.  
Economy begets productivity.
Productivity begets Freedom.


----------



## Toro

There is lots of oil.  Lots and lots of it.  

What there is not a lot of is cheap oil that can be extracted easily.  That includes oil from shale.


----------



## Big Fitz

Toro said:


> There is lots of oil.  Lots and lots of it.
> 
> What there is not a lot of is cheap oil that can be extracted easily.  That includes oil from shale.


for now.  and we haven't explored everywhere yet.


----------



## JiggsCasey

hi kids.

oil shale... not exactly oil...

Wiki: Oil shale, an organic-rich fine-grained sedimentary rock, contains significant amounts of kerogen (a solid mixture of organic chemical compounds) from which technology can be used to extract liquid hydrocarbons. *The name oil shale is a misnomer as geologists would not necessarily classify the rock as a shale, and its kerogen differs from crude oil. *Kerogen requires more processing to use than crude oil, which increases its cost as a crude-oil substitute both financially and in terms of its environmental impact.[1][2] Deposits of oil shale occur around the world, including major deposits in the United States of America. Estimates of global deposits range from 2.8 trillion to 3.3 trillion barrels (450 × 109 to 520 × 109 m3) of recoverable oil.[2][3][4][5]
​
gosh, where IS the original poster on this issue? he was so passionate. ... let's us know when someone figures out how to use oil shale to make unleaded gasoline, plastics, rubber, etc., on a mass commercial scale.


----------



## Eightball

JiggsCasey said:


> hi kids.
> 
> oil shale... not exactly oil...
> 
> Wiki: Oil shale, an organic-rich fine-grained sedimentary rock, contains significant amounts of kerogen (a solid mixture of organic chemical compounds) from which technology can be used to extract liquid hydrocarbons. *The name oil shale is a misnomer as geologists would not necessarily classify the rock as a shale, and its kerogen differs from crude oil. *Kerogen requires more processing to use than crude oil, which increases its cost as a crude-oil substitute both financially and in terms of its environmental impact.[1][2] Deposits of oil shale occur around the world, including major deposits in the United States of America. Estimates of global deposits range from 2.8 trillion to 3.3 trillion barrels (450 × 109 to 520 × 109 m3) of recoverable oil.[2][3][4][5]
> ​
> gosh, where IS the original poster on this issue? he was so passionate. ... let's us know when someone figures out how to use oil shale to make unleaded gasoline, plastics, rubber, etc., on a mass commercial scale.



He's still passionate about the topic.........and is still here.

The ability or technology is here now...........at $80.00-$90.00/barrel.

Environmental impact is something that comes with any and all energy exploration/utilization.

I still remember when it was said that Lake Erie would take eons become clean, yet it has cleaned up much quicker than greenie/wingnuts had predicted.

We have the technology to mine the oil shale, process it and also to do land-restoration where it is strip mined.

I realize that a lot of strip mining of the past has laid-waste to areas, and polluted ground water tables, but good conservation along with mining is here and now.
******

Crimoney, there pulling large quantities of useable methane gas from old garbage landfills.  In Toledo Ohio, there was a project where the Jeep plant was going to utilize landfill methane to power electric generation for the assembly plant.


----------



## Big Fitz

> I still remember when it was said that Lake Erie would take eons become clean, yet it has cleaned up much quicker than greenie/wingnuts had predicted.



That is because of three things:

1. Lake Erie water completely recycles about ever 2-3 years.

2. It is the ONLY redeeming factor of Zebra Muscles which filter crap like crazy.

3. Econazis are fucking morons when it comes to their predictions.  If something is 1000 years away, they'll tell you it'll happen next Friday at 8:24:31pm.  If it's a million years out.  I'll happen on a Tuesday sometime next year.


----------



## The T

Big Fitz said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is lots of oil. Lots and lots of it.
> 
> What there is not a lot of is cheap oil that can be extracted easily. That includes oil from shale.
> 
> 
> 
> for now. and we haven't explored everywhere yet.
Click to expand...

 
That is to say where it's been _allowed._


----------



## JiggsCasey

Eightball said:


> The ability or technology is here now...........at $80.00-$90.00/barrel.



No, it isn't. Not in any scale that would sustain growth with surplus. I'm pretty sure I know where you're getting your figures, but the honest rate at which it's "cost effective" is more like $200/bl, and at that point, the global economy will have depressed to the point that demand will be crushed, and prices will only plummet anyway. 

They've been working on the shale process for 40 years, and have gained about 1 yard. In all the time they've tried to make shale/sands work, they've managed to go from 1:1.5, to 1.8:1 EROEI. Wow! What progress!

It is never going to work, it is never going to sustain our paradigm of 85 million barrels per day, and it's never going to sustain industries of plastics, fertilizers, pesticides, rubber, refridgeration, etc., such that light crude does. To believe otherwise is to buy - hook, line and sinker - the rosie reports of the shale industry itself.

WAKE UP!



Eightball said:


> Environmental impact is something that comes with any and all energy exploration/utilization.
> 
> I still remember when it was said that Lake Erie would take eons become clean, yet it has cleaned up much quicker than greenie/wingnuts had predicted.
> 
> We have the technology to mine the oil shale, process it and also to do land-restoration where it is strip mined.
> 
> I realize that a lot of strip mining of the past has laid-waste to areas, and polluted ground water tables, but good conservation along with mining is here and now.



This is such a bunch of baseless crap. Please link to where you're getting your information, and hopefully not from shaleforall.com, or some such advocacy Web site. If you're hoping no one calls you on this empty assertion, you're going to lose. Let's analyze your data closely, after we consider the source. Up for that challenge?

There is no such thing as restoration in the wake of strip mining. Not in any honest sense of the explanation. There is also nothing you can do to fix the water table once you've polluted it with sulfur, mercury and other horrible carcinogens. 

The technology required to "frack" this SYNTHETIC (or even to isolate and burn it via the in-situ process) from bitumen and/or kerogen rock and clay is EXTREMELY energy intensive, and they have not figured out a way to make it commercially viable in any way/shape/form, regardless of the price of light crude. This says nothing of the later refinement process of this heavy crap that is also insanely expensive compared to refining light crude.

Why do you think Exxon pulled out of the shale failure in 1982? They knew the score.

If shale oil and tar sands were at all viable on a mass commercial scale, it would have been done so... Long ago. ... It's not, and it won't. ... Net investment is leaving, not joining, the cause.


----------



## Big Fitz

> Why do you think Exxon pulled out of the shale failure in 1982? They knew the score.



So... Exxon is still using 28 year old technology and techniques?  No wonder.  I guess they won't be able to compete with those using modern technology.  Somebody very soon is going to go "Wyatt" out there in Colorado.  Only a matter of time.

Don't know who Wyatt is?  Read "Atlas Shrugged".


----------



## Big Fitz

> They've been working on the shale process for 40 years, and have gained about 1 yard. In all the time they've tried to make shale/sands work, they've managed to go from 1:1.5, to 1.8:1 EROEI. Wow! What progress!



What do you propose instead?  Ethanol or Biodiesel which has a EROEI of even less?  And worse environmental impact to make?


----------



## JiggsCasey

Big Fitz said:


> What do you propose instead?  Ethanol or Biodiesel which has a EROEI of even less?  And worse environmental impact to make?



Neither. I propose sensible conservation methods, first and foremost, which MAY buy us the extra decade needed to allow innovation to catch up.

When you're done trotting out laughable straw-man arguments and displaying perpetual cognitive dissonance, I'll be back later today or tomorrow to deal with your laughable response in the other thread.

You a hope-based flat earther who's, ironically, hopeless to ever come around. That much is clear. But this is really for anyone reading your goofiness who might otherwise actually buy your pap if no one holds it accountable.


----------



## Big Fitz

I love it.  We who deny the leftist lies are the flat earthers.



> I propose sensible conservation methods, first and foremost, which MAY buy us the extra decade needed to allow innovation to catch up.



Hope much?  BTW, there has never been a time where mankind has ever 'conserved' its way out of an energy source.  It just doesn't work.  The only way you can do this level of conservation is to start murdering MILLIONS of people by disease or starvation.  War is very energy intensive, so you can't do that... unless you're talking nuclear.

And to top it off, you HOPE, unproven, unstable energy sources that we currently have will shoulder the load.  Plus, how you going to replace all the plastics and chemicals and other materials based on petroleum we use to make life on this planet possible?  How you going to get your hydrogen since it is currently harvested from the best source of hydrogen dense materials... OIL!!!



> When you're done trotting out laughable straw-man arguments and displaying perpetual cognitive dissonance, I'll be back later today or tomorrow to deal with your laughable response in the other thread.



Oh boy!  I'm sure some Chicken Littles are hoping you can rebuild their faith.  You're pushing perpetual motion Jiggles.  So you can go find those who support your point of view and assuage your tortured psyche by telling you, bad math trumps basic logic, a historical trend of wrong predictions and the fact your solutions are no solutions at all for billions of people, unless you count mass extermination.  Sucks to be them I guess.

I'll help you out though and maybe some speck of reality will sink in.

1. (problem existence)How can you say we've got no more oil and it's all been discovered when oil companies have been either politically or technologically prevented from searching more than 70% of the Earth's Surface?  Them oceans is big.  Them politicians are very NIMBY.

2. (solution functionality) Since there are only two sources of electrical power capable of supporting the US infrastructure, Coal and Nuclear and still be able to grow, how do you propose to replace this with far far far less capable and dependable sources?  Will you shut down econazi law suits and interference stopping all capital power grid improvements like transmission lines even from 'green' sources like wind and solar?  Do you agree that T. Boone Pickens is right that Wind is NOT viable?

3. (transportation) How do you conquer the portable fuel problems for transportation?  Electricity works for trains and light cars, but it cannot work at current technological levels for heavy transport for road freight which is a key lynchpin to global society.  How will you power aircraft when Hydrogen requires petroleum and you can't use electricity?

Just see if you can get through these logic problems first.


----------



## Big Fitz

Wow... the crickets are deafening.


----------



## Old Rocks

Them oceans is very big, and now one of them is very dirty.

Come on, Fritz, altogether now, Drill, baby, Drill.


----------



## Big Fitz

Old Rocks said:


> Them oceans is very big, and now one of them is very dirty.
> 
> Come on, Fritz, altogether now, Drill, baby, Drill.


I'm sorry, what's the size of the Gulf of Mexico, and what's the size of the spill?  Yes it's bad, but let's not lie about the scale here.  The spill probably won't even reach the atlantic.

Now, fun little surpise today.  I met a guy who overheard me and others talking about the oil spill.  The guy interjected himself into the conversation (oh noes!  Personal contact can't be trusted!  It has no truthiness unless its from the interwebz!) to talk about his personal experience with the clean up effort and aftermath of the Exxon Valdez.

He stated that the areas that he worked on the clean up effort are still dead  As in doornails.  But the areas that were NOT cleaned by man have bounced back nicely.  When he looked into it, he found out that the detergents used killed off the greatest cleaning tool the ocean has for oil: Plankton.  The plankton, he stated, eats the oil, and then the fish and other creatures eat them.  In this method the ocean had metabolized much of the oil slick allowing the area to bounce back while the manmade 'clean' areas are still dead or barely recovering.

All this on the heels of Rush Limbaugh IIRC reporting on a study pointing out that cleaning chemicals harm the environmnt worse than the oil spills.

Maybe we should let mother nature handle the clean up on this one too.

And yes.  Drill, baby drill.  Unless you're some sort of an anti-human luddite.


----------



## JiggsCasey

Big Fitz said:


> Wow... the crickets are deafening.



Hey there pumpkin, let's understand something early on in our blossoming relationship: I don't spend every waking moment of every day on here like you do. If I don't respond right away, rest assured it's because I've forgotten about your dime-a-dozen fossil fuel views, and not visited the site in a while. I've been busy with real world stuff, like making sure Cape Wind passed, thanks. 

In short, I don't duck pablum like yours. If I see, I'm happy to hammer it.



Big Fitz said:


> I love it.  We who deny the leftist lies are the flat earthers.



No, you're flat earthers because you talk like flat earthers. There's really no agenda behind the acknowledgement whatsoever... Further, I'm not a "leftist," and I'm not sure of what lies you're even referring to.



Big Fitz said:


> Hope much?  BTW, there has never been a time where mankind has ever 'conserved' its way out of an energy source.  It just doesn't work.



What does this even mean, exactly? "Conserved it's way out of an energy source?" Proofread your work before hitting "submit."

If you mean an "energy crisis," quantify your claim. What past energy crisis? This is an unprecedented situation that you can not compare anything to from the past, making your assertion an unfalsifiable claim. Do better. Hollow cliche might work for you with other posters, but not here.



Big Fitz said:


> The only way you can do this level of conservation is to start murdering MILLIONS of people by disease or starvation.  War is very energy intensive, so you can't do that... unless you're talking nuclear.



The only way? Based on what? Your opinion? LOL. ... Regardless, dieoff is inevitable, whether conjured by man or forced by mother nature... Learn about the exponential function and tell me how a planet of 7+ billion people is sustainable. ....   Regardless, who's arguing that demand destruction isn't already well under way? Certainly not me, so it appears you're arguing with your own straw man again. How do you think the summer 2008 oil price spikes were halted and reversed? Demand destruction.... by way of global recession/depression. Energy dictates to the markets, not the other way around.



Big Fitz said:


> And to top it off, you HOPE, unproven, unstable energy sources that we currently have will shoulder the load.



I do? Where? At what point did I insist anything would "shoulder any load?"



Big Fitz said:


> Plus, how you going to replace all the plastics and chemicals and other materials based on petroleum we use to make life on this planet possible?  How you going to get your hydrogen since it is currently harvested from the best source of hydrogen dense materials... OIL!!!



You seem to have a real problem understanding my position on this matter, entirely. I'll be less subtle, so you can hopefully stop assigning straw man arguments I've never uttered. Ready?

As "Industrial Man," we're largely fucked. That's the whole point. There is no substitute for the versatility that oil provides -- rubber, plastics, pesticides, fertilizers, computer chips, medicines, refrigeration, etc. ... What only matters is mitigating this predicament so as to avoid full-blown resource war. Life is going to change very rapidly over the next 15-20 years, and no amount of shale or tar sands is going to change that. People better learn to conserve, and get very local in the process. ... This isn't a choice, it's mother nature talking. ... 

Your shale/sands pipedream will never become economically viable on a mass commercial scale in time to stave off the major energy shock that is already started, and due for full-on 10 million bpd shortball by 2015. .... Sorry, it just won't.

Do you have any idea what a 10 million barrel per day shortfall will mean for the global economy, as predicted by the IEA, EIA, DoE and Joint Chiefs? ... Let's just say, no one will have the money to invest in the next 1-yard gain by oil shale here on 4th-and-25.



Big Fitz said:


> Oh boy!  I'm sure some Chicken Littles are hoping you can rebuild their faith.  You're pushing perpetual motion Jiggles.  So you can go find those who support your point of view and assuage your tortured psyche by telling you, bad math trumps basic logic, a historical trend of wrong predictions and the fact your solutions are no solutions at all for billions of people, unless you count mass extermination.  Sucks to be them I guess.



See above, smarmy one.  And do let me know where I EVER ONCE suggested there were "solutions" to this situation. Only mitigation.



Big Fitz said:


> I'll help you out though and maybe some speck of reality will sink in.



You'll "help me out?" Dude, I'm dumber for having to absorb your naive, long-debunked pablum regarding heavy oils.



Big Fitz said:


> 1. (problem existence)How can you say we've got no more oil and it's all been discovered when oil companies have been either politically or technologically prevented from searching more than 70% of the Earth's Surface?  Them oceans is big.  Them politicians are very NIMBY.



My God. It's like you can't read. Where did I say "we've got no more oil?" This is about the end of cheap energy, and cost and EROEI. If you miraculously find a trillion barrels 100 miles under the Earth, who's going to invest the capital and develop the technology in time to get it to the surface before shortfall, which is here now? It takes 7-10 years to find the stuff and get it into your gas tank, and that's just the easy stuff on dry land in stable regions.

We're an empire built on an EROEI of 100:1 to 20:1 until we peaked in 1971. Now global production is yielding closer to 4:1 on investment,and getting worse. Energy IS the economy. Is has allowed us to be where we are. Empire.

Do you see how energy depletion up against population explosion can't sustain an economic paradigm utterly dependent on "infinite growth?" It's fairly basic stuff here. This is about economics, not running dry at the pump overnight.

Again... learn about the exponential function by a physics professor.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFyOw9IgtjY&feature=PlayList&p=5A77AC29E2E95E23&index=2&playnext=3&playnext_from=PL[/ame]



Big Fitz said:


> 2. (solution functionality) Since there are only two sources of electrical power capable of supporting the US infrastructure, Coal and Nuclear and still be able to grow, how do you propose to replace this with far far far less capable and dependable sources?  Will you shut down econazi law suits and interference stopping all capital power grid improvements like transmission lines even from 'green' sources like wind and solar?  Do you agree that T. Boone Pickens is right that Wind is NOT viable?



Once again, there are no "solutions" that will allow us to maintain the lifestyles we now enjoy. No where did I suggest renewables could "replace" anything. But the more renewable infrastructure that is in place for when collapse hits, the better off we'll be as individual communities. I'm not coming at this from a position of sustaining our gluttony. That is impossible. You seem to believe that digging deeper for more disgusting fossil fuels is the "solution." I'm saying there are no solutions. ... The mantra by the Michael Ruppert's of the world is "evolve or perish; grow up or die." ...It's a fitting one when faced with people, like you, who insist we can just burn our way out of this problem.



Big Fitz said:


> 3. (transportation) How do you conquer the portable fuel problems for transportation?  Electricity works for trains and light cars, but it cannot work at current technological levels for heavy transport for road freight which is a key lynchpin to global society.  How will you power aircraft when Hydrogen requires petroleum and you can't use electricity?



I don't propose any of it. Breakdown in commercial food distribution will be the biggest contributor to dieoff. The age of the 10,000 mile Caesar salad will be over. .... Communities will have to get very local, or cease to exist....  One last time... there is no "conquering" this situation. .... Maybe if we started to get serious about this 30 years ago when warned, but it's largely too late after decades of corporate presidents.



Big Fitz said:


> Just see if you can get through these logic problems first.



Logic problems. Now there's some irony, from a poster who honestly believes we've made any substantial progress in bitumen and kerogen-based heavy oil extraction and refinement. Good one.

In conclusion: demand is already outstripping supply, has since 2005, and nothing -- NOTHING -- is remotely ready to make up for that shortfall. The IEA expects a 10 million barrel per day shortfall by 2015, which be disastrous on a Biblical scale. Prices will spike, the global economy will crash (starting to already), and resource war will become likely.

I've accepted it, mainly because all the signs predicted to occur by now 7-10 years ago have all come true. May as well build some damn turbines. Grab a hammer.

But you're free to link to all the optimistic sites you can find insisting great, 1-yard advances in shale by strip mining and burning the Rocky Mountains. Surely dirtier, far more expensive fossil fuels  will somehow save everything we hold sacred -- from the internet to  our yachts to our guns to our humvees.


----------



## sitarro

JiggsCasey said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow... the crickets are deafening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey there pumpkin, let's understand something early on in our blossoming relationship: I don't spend every waking moment of every day on here like you do. If I don't respond right away, rest assured it's because I've forgotten about your dime-a-dozen fossil fuel views, and not visited the site in a while. I've been busy with real world stuff, like making sure Cape Wind passed, thanks.
> 
> In short, I don't duck pablum like yours. If I see, I'm happy to hammer it.
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love it.  We who deny the leftist lies are the flat earthers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you're flat earthers because you talk like flat earthers. There's really no agenda behind the acknowledgement whatsoever... Further, I'm not a "leftist," and I'm not sure of what lies you're even referring to.
> 
> 
> 
> What does this even mean, exactly? "Conserved it's way out of an energy source?" Proofread your work before hitting "submit."
> 
> If you mean an "energy crisis," quantify your claim. What past energy crisis? This is an unprecedented situation that you can not compare anything to from the past, making your assertion an unfalsifiable claim. Do better. Hollow cliche might work for you with other posters, but not here.
> 
> 
> 
> The only way? Based on what? Your opinion? LOL. ... Regardless, dieoff is inevitable, whether conjured by man or forced by mother nature... Learn about the exponential function and tell me how a planet of 7+ billion people is sustainable. ....   Regardless, who's arguing that demand destruction isn't already well under way? Certainly not me, so it appears you're arguing with your own straw man again. How do you think the summer 2008 oil price spikes were halted and reversed? Demand destruction.... by way of global recession/depression. Energy dictates to the markets, not the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> I do? Where? At what point did I insist anything would "shoulder any load?"
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have a real problem understanding my position on this matter, entirely. I'll be less subtle, so you can hopefully stop assigning straw man arguments I've never uttered. Ready?
> 
> As "Industrial Man," we're largely fucked. That's the whole point. There is no substitute for the versatility that oil provides -- rubber, plastics, pesticides, fertilizers, computer chips, medicines, refrigeration, etc. ... What only matters is mitigating this predicament so as to avoid full-blown resource war. Life is going to change very rapidly over the next 15-20 years, and no amount of shale or tar sands is going to change that. People better learn to conserve, and get very local in the process. ... This isn't a choice, it's mother nature talking. ...
> 
> Your shale/sands pipedream will never become economically viable on a mass commercial scale in time to stave off the major energy shock that is already started, and due for full-on 10 million bpd shortball by 2015. .... Sorry, it just won't.
> 
> Do you have any idea what a 10 million barrel per day shortfall will mean for the global economy, as predicted by the IEA, EIA, DoE and Joint Chiefs? ... Let's just say, no one will have the money to invest in the next 1-yard gain by oil shale here on 4th-and-25.
> 
> 
> 
> See above, smarmy one.  And do let me know where I EVER ONCE suggested there were "solutions" to this situation. Only mitigation.
> 
> 
> 
> You'll "help me out?" Dude, I'm dumber for having to absorb your naive, long-debunked pablum regarding heavy oils.
> 
> 
> 
> My God. It's like you can't read. Where did I say "we've got no more oil?" This is about the end of cheap energy, and cost and EROEI. If you miraculously find a trillion barrels 100 miles under the Earth, who's going to invest the capital and develop the technology in time to get it to the surface before shortfall, which is here now? It takes 7-10 years to find the stuff and get it into your gas tank, and that's just the easy stuff on dry land in stable regions.
> 
> We're an empire built on an EROEI of 100:1 to 20:1 until we peaked in 1971. Now global production is yielding closer to 4:1 on investment,and getting worse. Energy IS the economy. Is has allowed us to be where we are. Empire.
> 
> Do you see how energy depletion up against population explosion can't sustain an economic paradigm utterly dependent on "infinite growth?" It's fairly basic stuff here. This is about economics, not running dry at the pump overnight.
> 
> Again... learn about the exponential function by a physics professor.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFyOw9IgtjY&feature=PlayList&p=5A77AC29E2E95E23&index=2&playnext=3&playnext_from=PL]YouTube - The Most IMPORTANT Video You'll Ever See (part 3 of 8)[/ame]
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, there are no "solutions" that will allow us to maintain the lifestyles we now enjoy. No where did I suggest renewables could "replace" anything. But the more renewable infrastructure that is in place for when collapse hits, the better off we'll be as individual communities. I'm not coming at this from a position of sustaining our gluttony. That is impossible. You seem to believe that digging deeper for more disgusting fossil fuels is the "solution." I'm saying there are no solutions. ... The mantra by the Michael Ruppert's of the world is "evolve or perish; grow up or die." ...It's a fitting one when faced with people, like you, who insist we can just burn our way out of this problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. (transportation) How do you conquer the portable fuel problems for transportation?  Electricity works for trains and light cars, but it cannot work at current technological levels for heavy transport for road freight which is a key lynchpin to global society.  How will you power aircraft when Hydrogen requires petroleum and you can't use electricity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't propose any of it. Breakdown in commercial food distribution will be the biggest contributor to dieoff. The age of the 10,000 mile Caesar salad will be over. .... Communities will have to get very local, or cease to exist....  One last time... there is no "conquering" this situation. .... Maybe if we started to get serious about this 30 years ago when warned, but it's largely too late after decades of corporate presidents.
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just see if you can get through these logic problems first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Logic problems. Now there's some irony, from a poster who honestly believes we've made any substantial progress in bitumen and kerogen-based heavy oil extraction and refinement. Good one.
> 
> In conclusion: demand is already outstripping supply, has since 2005, and nothing -- NOTHING -- is remotely ready to make up for that shortfall. The IEA expects a 10 million barrel per day shortfall by 2015, which be disastrous on a Biblical scale. Prices will spike, the global economy will crash (starting to already), and resource war will become likely.
> 
> I've accepted it, mainly because all the signs predicted to occur by now 7-10 years ago have all come true. May as well build some damn turbines. Grab a hammer.
> 
> But you're free to link to all the optimistic sites you can find insisting great, 1-yard advances in shale by strip mining and burning the Rocky Mountains. Surely dirtier, far more expensive fossil fuels  will somehow save everything we hold sacred -- from the internet to  our yachts to our guns to our humvees.
Click to expand...


Hey Jiggs, what's your answer to population growth? It would appear that the people that traditionally vote for the Democrats are behind the vast amount of population growth....... especially, society robbing, government teet sucking, criminal breeding, drains on everything worth a shit population growth. The poorest, least educated legal and illegals are growing at ridiculous rates, what are you and your buddies that have all the answers going to do about it? It's not like they don't consume electricity and multiple forms of fossil fuel, we have the richest poor in the world. Most have cars, cell phones, big screen televisions and plenty of liquor and guns....... what they don't have is marketable skills or a desire to get them when it's so much easier to get the government handouts and steal from what the Democrats tell them are the evil rich. What the big plan?


----------



## KissMy

There is no energy crisis. We just need to import less.

Matt Simmons & T. Boone Pickens are full of shit & have helped Wall Street Bankers Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, & BP conspire to rip you off. We did not have global peak oil production in 2005 & did not have peak USA oil production in 1970s. Governments are restricting production. Global oil production in 2008 reached 87.3 mb/d. That exceeded these experts prediction of 85 mb/d in 2005.

Here are details about how Wall Street uses tank farms & tanker ships holding oil offshore along with other aspects of the ongoing Enron-ification of the entire energy system.


----------



## Big Fitz

::pens mouth... closes it again:::
  :::rereads Jiggs' post::: 



Nope.  Not even worth talking to.


----------



## JiggsCasey

Big Fitz said:


> ::pens mouth... closes it again:::
> :::rereads Jiggs' post:::
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Not even worth talking to.



that's because you've got nothing to offer.... especially after realizing you have a real problem representing my position accurately.

very well, Mr. Drebbin. Run along now.


----------



## JiggsCasey

KissMy said:


> There is no energy crisis. We just need to import less.
> 
> Matt Simmons & T. Boone Pickens are full of shit & have helped Wall Street Bankers Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, & BP conspire to rip you off. We did not have global peak oil production in 2005 & did not have peak USA oil production in 1970s. Governments are restricting production. Global oil production in 2008 reached 87.3 mb/d. That exceeded these experts prediction of 85 mb/d in 2005.
> 
> Here are details about how Wall Street uses tank farms & tanker ships holding oil offshore along with other aspects of the ongoing Enron-ification of the entire energy system.



turn off Alex Jones for a day, and come back to reality.

the peakoildebunked site does not deny peak oil... only the time frame.... and the proprietor, JD, has all but abandoned his site as one layer after another that he's denied for years has come true, making him look more and more idiotic.

if you can explain how the IEA, the Pentagon, the EIA, ASPO, the UN, the DoE, Total Oil, and long lines of petroleum geologists are all "full of shit," and how they collaborated on a vast lie that makes 9/11 conspiracy look like a minor huddle by comparison, the forum is all ears, wishful thinker.

do better.


----------



## Big Fitz

JiggsCasey said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ::pens mouth... closes it again:::
> :::rereads Jiggs' post:::
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Not even worth talking to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's because you've got nothing to offer.... especially after realizing you have a real problem representing my position accurately.
> 
> very well, Mr. Drebbin. Run along now.
Click to expand...

Noooo.  I don't waste my time on lunatic hopeless causes.


----------



## Old Rocks

Thank You, Jiggs. 

Population growth, the rapid depletion of resources, and a changing climate are going to make this a very interesting century. The rapidity of the changes has taken even the 'alarmists' by surprise. Even at my age, I may see the start of the rapid decline in the human population.


----------



## JiggsCasey

Big Fitz said:


> Noooo.  I don't waste my time on lunatic hopeless causes.



For a poster, you, who wastes an inordinate amount of time on this message board pumping circular logic, straw man argument and unfalsifiable claims, this is some poetic irony above, looney con man..

white flag accepted, limited poster. anytime u wanna explain how the DoE, IEA and Pentagon are all wrong, and how you're smarter than them all, the forum is all ears.


----------



## JiggsCasey

sitarro said:


> Hey Jiggs, what's your answer to population growth? It would appear that the people that traditionally vote for the Democrats are behind the vast amount of population growth....... especially, society robbing, government teet sucking, criminal breeding, drains on everything worth a shit population growth. The poorest, least educated legal and illegals are growing at ridiculous rates, what are you and your buddies that have all the answers going to do about it? It's not like they don't consume electricity and multiple forms of fossil fuel, we have the richest poor in the world. Most have cars, cell phones, big screen televisions and plenty of liquor and guns....... what they don't have is marketable skills or a desire to get them when it's so much easier to get the government handouts and steal from what the Democrats tell them are the evil rich. What the big plan?



My answer? or THE answer? the inevitability is war and chaos, which I believe is inevitable, due to mankind's nationalism, greed and arrogance.

My answer would start with actually acknowledging our population predicament. Opening a rational, open and ethical domestic and international dialogue on population growth and reduction. Education, tax breaks for one-child families (rather than breaks for huge families now), subsidized contraceptives? Might be a good start.

But I'm skeptical we'll ever get there. Willfully hindering human reproduction illicits very dark connotations, and defies many religious barriers. We'll never do it peacefully on our own. Instead, either mother nature will take care of it for us, or nuclear winter will.

At the end of the day, the science and mathematics are clear: There were only about 1.5 billion of us before oil. We are were we are 150 years later because of it. And there's no longer enough of it to go around. ... Period, end of story.

This rubber band can not continue to be pulled from both ends without eventually snapping.


----------



## KissMy

JiggsCasey said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no energy crisis. We just need to import less.
> 
> Matt Simmons & T. Boone Pickens are full of shit & have helped Wall Street Bankers Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, & BP conspire to rip you off. We did not have global peak oil production in 2005 & did not have peak USA oil production in 1970s. Governments are restricting production. Global oil production in 2008 reached 87.3 mb/d. That exceeded these experts prediction of 85 mb/d in 2005.
> 
> Here are details about how Wall Street uses tank farms & tanker ships holding oil offshore along with other aspects of the ongoing Enronification of the entire energy system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turn off Alex Jones for a day, and come back to reality.
> 
> the peakoildebunked site does not deny peak oil... only the time frame.... and the proprietor, JD, has all but abandoned his site as one layer after another that he's denied for years has come true, making him look more and more idiotic.
> 
> if you can explain how the IEA, the Pentagon, the EIA, ASPO, the UN, the DoE, Total Oil, and long lines of petroleum geologists are all "full of shit," and how they collaborated on a vast lie that makes 9/11 conspiracy look like a minor huddle by comparison, the forum is all ears, wishful thinker.
> 
> do better.
Click to expand...


I did not get my info from Alex Jones. The chart I posted came from the International Energy Agency&#8217;s (IEA) Oil Market Report. Matt Simmons & T. Boone Pickens have been pounding the airwaves since 2005 saying we passed peak oil in 2005 at 85mb/d yet in 2008 production jumped to 87mb/d. I will say cheap oil is gone meaning that the enormous growth in 3rd world countries have driven demand beyond supply & bringing on new production to keep pace with new demand will cost more to produce & tight supply will keep prices high. The last oil price spike showed that demand drops at $3.00 a gallon, so gas prices will remain just below $3 for a long time.


----------



## Big Fitz

KissMy said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no energy crisis. We just need to import less.
> 
> Matt Simmons & T. Boone Pickens are full of shit & have helped Wall Street Bankers Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, & BP conspire to rip you off. We did not have global peak oil production in 2005 & did not have peak USA oil production in 1970s. Governments are restricting production. Global oil production in 2008 reached 87.3 mb/d. That exceeded these experts prediction of 85 mb/d in 2005.
> 
> Here are details about how Wall Street uses tank farms & tanker ships holding oil offshore along with other aspects of the ongoing Enronification of the entire energy system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turn off Alex Jones for a day, and come back to reality.
> 
> the peakoildebunked site does not deny peak oil... only the time frame.... and the proprietor, JD, has all but abandoned his site as one layer after another that he's denied for years has come true, making him look more and more idiotic.
> 
> if you can explain how the IEA, the Pentagon, the EIA, ASPO, the UN, the DoE, Total Oil, and long lines of petroleum geologists are all "full of shit," and how they collaborated on a vast lie that makes 9/11 conspiracy look like a minor huddle by comparison, the forum is all ears, wishful thinker.
> 
> do better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not get my info from Alex Jones. The chart I posted came from the International Energy Agencys (IEA) Oil Market Report. Matt Simmons & T. Boone Pickens have been pounding the airwaves since 2005 saying we passed peak oil in 2005 at 85mb/d yet in 2008 production jumped to 87mb/d. I will say cheap oil is gone meaning that the enormous growth in 3rd world countries have driven demand beyond supply & bringing on new production to keep pace with new demand will cost more to produce & tight supply will keep prices high. The last oil price spike showed that demand drops at $3.00 a gallon, so gas prices will remain just below $3 for a long time.
Click to expand...

No you have to understand JerksConstantly believes anyone who disagrees with him gets their information from Alex Jones.


----------



## JiggsCasey

Big Fitz said:


> No you have to understand JerksConstantly believes anyone who disagrees with him gets their information from Alex Jones.



It's official... Your arsenal for this debate is utterly bankrupt, .... It's so pathetic for your argument, you're left with laughable extrapolation and painfully lame distortions of other poster's forum handles. 

Wow, do you ever suck at this.


----------



## Big Fitz

JiggsCasey said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you have to understand JerksConstantly believes anyone who disagrees with him gets their information from Alex Jones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's official... Your arsenal for this debate is utterly bankrupt, .... It's so pathetic for your argument, you're left with laughable extrapolation and painfully lame distortions of other poster's forum handles.
> 
> Wow, do you ever suck at this.
Click to expand...

Ding!  Scored a hit.


----------



## JiggsCasey




----------



## Oddball

Sorry, but basic economics still don't support the "peak oil" myth, Mr. Malthus.


----------



## Big Fitz

Anyone else notice how high the oil prices spiked with all that very rare light sweet crude GUSHING into the gulf of mexico?  Wait... you didn't either?  huh.  whoda thunk?  With oil being so rare and so little of it being found every passing year... you'd think the price would have increased by a factor of 10 by now.


----------



## KissMy

I found JiggsCasey's mentor - [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mys_AQjM4U0&feature=related"]Ted Turner[/ame]


----------



## JiggsCasey

Dude said:


> Sorry, but basic economics still don't support the "peak oil" myth, Mr. Malthus.



Actually, moron, oil supports economics, not the other way around...  Once again, if its a myth, why does the DoE, the IEA, the EIA, Lloyds and the Pentagon all disagree with you? You must know better, right, closet righty?



Big Fitz said:


> Anyone else notice how high the oil prices spiked with all that very rare light sweet crude GUSHING into the gulf of mexico?  Wait... you didn't either?  huh.  whoda thunk?  With oil being so rare and so little of it being found every passing year...* you'd think* the price would have increased by a factor of 10 by now.



Yes, of course, genius... Because anything that doesn't happen overnight for a field that holds a total of about 16 hours of energy must not be happening. 

"You'd think.... "    Yeah, you're brilliant.



KissMy said:


> I found JiggsCasey's mentor - Ted Turner



Wrong again. Ted Turner is a student of this subject matter, just like me. My mentors are guys like Kenneth Deffeyes, Colin Campbell, Richard Heinberg, ... you know, actual petrol geologists and scientists. ...


----------



## KissMy

JiggsCasey said:


> Wrong again. Ted Turner is a student of this subject matter, just like me. My mentors are guys like Kenneth Deffeyes, Colin Campbell, Richard Heinberg, ... you know, actual petrol geologists and scientists. ...



All those mentors of yours have been proven wrong. We have passed all their prediction dates with rising production. They are more credible than the man made global warming crowd but so far none of their fear mongering is coming true. Free markets will change human habits to renewables if a peak is ever detected.


----------



## GWV5903

uscitizen said:


> Ahh the shale oil scam.
> 
> Ever lived in an area that has been strip mined?



Your so funny.....have you ever seen what the hazards of cadmium mining do? 

Your ill informed and lapping up Al Gores Bull Shit, the only difference between Big Oil & Green Initiative is who has the power, same effect and it will be dam expensive to convert a global infrastructure, get a real education, then come back for the adult conversations.....


----------



## JiggsCasey

KissMy said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again. Ted Turner is a student of this subject matter, just like me. My mentors are guys like Kenneth Deffeyes, Colin Campbell, Richard Heinberg, ... you know, actual petrol geologists and scientists. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All those mentors of yours have been proven wrong. We have passed all their prediction dates with rising production. They are more credible than the man made global warming crowd but so far none of their fear mongering is coming true. Free markets will change human habits to renewables if a peak is ever detected.
Click to expand...


What in God's name are you ever talking about?  None of them have been proven wrong. Not one. None of them gave a prediction date. We ARE in the beginning stages of demand>supply. In fact, until I named them, you very likely didn't know a thing about any one of them, and went scrambling to wiki to pretend you did know.

There will be no "free market" when there is a 10 million barrel per day shortfall... It will be utter chaos.... A condition you seem incapable of grasping.


----------



## Samson

GWV5903 said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh the shale oil scam.
> 
> Ever lived in an area that has been strip mined?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your so funny.....have you ever seen what the hazards of cadmium mining do?
> 
> Your ill informed and lapping up Al Gores Bull Shit, the only difference between Big Oil & Green Initiative is who has the power, same effect and it will be dam expensive to convert a global infrastructure, get a real education, then come back for the adult conversations.....
Click to expand...


Not to mention that strip mining oil shale is ridiculously impractical.


----------



## KissMy

JiggsCasey said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again. Ted Turner is a student of this subject matter, just like me. My mentors are guys like Kenneth Deffeyes, Colin Campbell, Richard Heinberg, ... you know, actual petrol geologists and scientists. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All those mentors of yours have been proven wrong. We have passed all their prediction dates with rising production. They are more credible than the man made global warming crowd but so far none of their fear mongering is coming true. Free markets will change human habits to renewables if a peak is ever detected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What in God's name are you ever talking about?  None of them have been proven wrong. Not one. None of them gave a prediction date. We ARE in the beginning stages of demand>supply. In fact, until I named them, you very likely didn't know a thing about any one of them, and went scrambling to wiki to pretend you did know.
> 
> There will be no "free market" when there is a 10 million barrel per day shortfall... It will be utter chaos.... A condition you seem incapable of grasping.
Click to expand...


Wrong - Back in early 2007 I studied this. I watched their YouTube predictions & read most of the stuff on peak-oil, Life After the Oil Crash, government documents & other stuff on this topic. They all thought world oil production peaked in 2005. T. Boon Pickins & Matt Simons were leading the charge. Oil was sky rocketing as the fear was spreading. I was starting to believe it was real. I bought ethanol, bio-diesel, Potash Fertilizer stocks, oil futures contracts & stocks at $85. It rose to $140 & turned out there was no peak oil in 2005 & Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank got into oil hoarding early in 2004. Wall Street uses tank farms & tanker ships holding oil offshore along with other aspects of the ongoing Enronification of the entire energy system. I bailed on oil at $120. Made money on oil & ethanol but lost on fertilizer & bio-diesel but came out well in the green overall.

This was allowed by government as a precursor to how Wallstreet & Government will handle carbon cap & trade. There was no peak-oil as all these guys predicted. There can't be man made global warming & peak oil. One or both groups are lying. People are making tons of money from these fear tactics. Best to buy the dips & sell the rallies while sitting back watching these lies play themselves out. We all heard this kind of crap back in the 70's & the same thing happened then also. Oil, Ethanol, Solar & Wind went boom & then bust. I saw the wind farms in California fall into dis-repair & ruin.


----------



## JiggsCasey

KissMy said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> All those mentors of yours have been proven wrong. We have passed all their prediction dates with rising production. They are more credible than the man made global warming crowd but so far none of their fear mongering is coming true. Free markets will change human habits to renewables if a peak is ever detected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What in God's name are you ever talking about?  None of them have been proven wrong. Not one. None of them gave a prediction date. We ARE in the beginning stages of demand>supply. In fact, until I named them, you very likely didn't know a thing about any one of them, and went scrambling to wiki to pretend you did know.
> 
> There will be no "free market" when there is a 10 million barrel per day shortfall... It will be utter chaos.... A condition you seem incapable of grasping.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong - Back in early 2007 I studied this. I watched their YouTube predictions & read most of the stuff on peak-oil, Life After the Oil Crash, government documents & other stuff on this topic. They all thought world oil production peaked in 2005. T. Boon Pickins & Matt Simons were leading the charge. Oil was sky rocketing as the fear was spreading. I was starting to believe it was real. I bought ethanol, bio-diesel, Potash Fertilizer stocks, oil futures contracts & stocks at $85. It rose to $140 & turned out there was no peak oil in 2005 & Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank got into oil hoarding early in 2004. Wall Street uses tank farms & tanker ships holding oil offshore along with other aspects of the ongoing Enronification of the entire energy system. I bailed on oil at $120. Made money on oil & ethanol but lost on fertilizer & bio-diesel but came out well in the green overall.
> 
> This was allowed by government as a precursor to how Wallstreet & Government will handle carbon cap & trade. There was no peak-oil as all these guys predicted. There can't be man made global warming & peak oil. One or both groups are lying. People are making tons of money from these fear tactics. Best to buy the dips & sell the rallies while sitting back watching these lies play themselves out. We all heard this kind of crap back in the 70's & the same thing happened then also. Oil, Ethanol, Solar & Wind went boom & then bust. I saw the wind farms in California fall into dis-repair & ruin.
Click to expand...


So, because you can still afford your internet connection and haven't lost your particular job (yet), it's not happening. Noted.

They all said it takes a few years after peak before economic shock sets it. Just because it didn't happen overnight, doesn't mean its not dead ahead.

They also predicted a "bumpy plateau" condition, which is exactly what has happened. That being, oil price volatility causes recession, which crushes demand, which lowers prices, which gives the illusion of recovery, which increases demand again, which outstrips existing supply... -- rinse - repeat.

No, they were dead-on correct, and continue to be. You're pretending otherwise because you don't see $6 gas yet. Meanwhile, we're simply skimming off a brief surplus, and new capacity is not coming close to keep up with dying existing capacity. Again, where is the light crude oil?

Also, again, why are those federal and international agencies lying? The IEA, the DoE, the Pentagon, the EIA, Total Oil in France, all predicting huge shortfall by 2015? I'm still waiting for anyone on this forum and many others to actually answer that question. No one dares, with good reason.


----------



## Samson

JiggsCasey said:


> Again, why are those federal and international agencies lying? I'm still waiting for anyone on this forum and many others to actually answer that question. No one dares, with good reason.



Maybe its because there is no evidence of "lying?"


----------



## JiggsCasey

Samson said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, why are those federal and international agencies lying? I'm still waiting for anyone on this forum and many others to actually answer that question. No one dares, with good reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe its because there is no evidence of "lying?"
Click to expand...


Exactly... They're not lying.... They're all telling the truth in their models of predicted 10 million b/d shortfall within 5 years... Every one of them. ... And that's why no one from the "nothing to see here" camp can dispute their findings.

Thanks.


----------



## Samson

JiggsCasey said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, why are those federal and international agencies lying? I'm still waiting for anyone on this forum and many others to actually answer that question. No one dares, with good reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe its because there is no evidence of "lying?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly... They're not lying.... They're all telling the truth in their models of predicted 10 million b/d shortfall within 5 years... Every one of them. ... And that's why no one from the "nothing to see here" camp can dispute their findings.
> 
> Thanks.
Click to expand...




um...how do you know if a prediction is true or not.

Do you know what a forecast is?


----------



## Big Fitz

> Actually, moron, oil supports economics, not the other way around...



:doh:  you just can't get it.



> Yes, of course, genius... Because anything that doesn't happen overnight for a field that holds a total of about 16 hours of energy must not be happening.
> 
> "You'd think.... " Yeah, you're brilliant.



Real 'overnight'... uh huh... 100 days of crisis, with a full on media blitz, saboteur federal government and toxic dispersants all trying to bankrupt BP... you'd think there would have been SOMETHING in the speculator market with how rare and precious light sweet crude is.  You'd think we only had a thimblefull left with the caterwauling you've been doing.


----------



## KissMy

JiggsCasey said:


> So, because you can still afford your internet connection and haven't lost your particular job (yet), it's not happening. Noted.
> 
> They all said it takes a few years after peak before economic shock sets it. Just because it didn't happen overnight, doesn't mean its not dead ahead.
> 
> They also predicted a "bumpy plateau" condition, which is exactly what has happened. That being, oil price volatility causes recession, which crushes demand, which lowers prices, which gives the illusion of recovery, which increases demand again, which outstrips existing supply... -- rinse - repeat.
> 
> No, they were dead-on correct, and continue to be. You're pretending otherwise because you don't see $6 gas yet. Meanwhile, we're simply skimming off a brief surplus, and new capacity is not coming close to keep up with dying existing capacity. Again, where is the light crude oil?
> 
> Also, again, why are those federal and international agencies lying? The IEA, the DoE, the Pentagon, the EIA, Total Oil in France, all predicting huge shortfall by 2015? I'm still waiting for anyone on this forum and many others to actually answer that question. No one dares, with good reason.



Oil is controlled around the world by government politics because oil controls the population. The only reason we peaked in the USA in the 70's was because of government restricting access, leases, & piplines. You may think Lindsy Williams is a kook. Actually I think so also, but he was a witness to history. His facts are good but his political logic is wacked. Politics & unions nearly prevented the Trans Alaska Pipeline from being built & nearly took down the oil companies involved. It most certainly prevented a second pipeline for natural gas from being constructed. Many areas were strategically made off limits. There are no USGS map scans made public for those areas. Government is slowing the US oil production. Other countries nationalized their oil supplies. This is all about global oil control. There is no free market oil otherwise we would not have a Drill Here Drill Now movement to force the government to let us drill. Study OPEC & Petro-Dollar. Petro-Dollar recycling is real power.


----------



## JiggsCasey

Samson said:


> um...how do you know if a prediction is true or not.
> 
> Do you know what a forecast is?



Yeah, ummm, that's how policy is made. Forecasts... The point is, are those entities lying when they forecast such an imminent shortfall? ... If what I'm saying is hogwash, then the IEA, Pentagon, DoE, and EIA all must just be pumping the fear card, yes?


----------



## JiggsCasey

Big Fitz said:


> Real 'overnight'... uh huh... 100 days of crisis, with a full on media blitz, saboteur federal government and toxic dispersants all trying to bankrupt BP... you'd think there would have been SOMETHING in the speculator market with how rare and precious light sweet crude is.  You'd think we only had a thimblefull left with the caterwauling you've been doing.



You're an idiot.   And officially irrelevant to the entire energy forum.

Tool.


----------



## JiggsCasey

KissMy said:


> Oil is controlled around the world by government politics because oil controls the population. The only reason we peaked in the USA in the 70's was because of government restricting access, leases, & piplines. You may think Lindsy Williams is a kook. Actually I think so also, but he was a witness to history. His facts are good but his political logic is wacked. Politics & unions nearly prevented the Trans Alaska Pipeline from being built & nearly took down the oil companies involved. It most certainly prevented a second pipeline for natural gas from being constructed. Many areas were strategically made off limits. There are no USGS map scans made public for those areas. Government is slowing the US oil production. Other countries nationalized their oil supplies. This is all about global oil control. There is no free market oil otherwise we would not have a Drill Here Drill Now movement to force the government to let us drill. Study OPEC & Petro-Dollar. Petro-Dollar recycling is real power.



LOL. 

Ok, so it's all a big conspiracy by the government... 40 years since US production peaked, it's has nothing to do with how much oil there ever was... Just restrictions put on by regulatory initiatives. Right... So we have a society utterly based on perpetual growth, and we somehow "choose" to restrict access to the foundation of growth -- energy. 

Makes sense. 



You guys just work backwards from a conslusion, and have been since WMD fraud. To hell with the data, government reports, petroleum geologists and economists.

Again, where is the new oil? In what amount? Saying, essentially, "it's there because i FEEL it's there," isn't winning you the debate.


----------



## KissMy

Government Restrictions on Domestic Energy Development Contribute to U.S. Dependence on Foreign Oil


> Although the U.S. has about 20 billion barrels of proved reserves, most Americans would be pleasantly surprised to learn that experts believe the nation probably has more than 110 billion barrels of recoverable oil, five times the estimated current supply. A 1995 National Assessment of U.S. Oil and Gas Resources prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) concluded that, in addition to the 20 billion barrels of proved reserves, there are another 30 billion barrels of undiscovered oil that could be recovered using conventional drilling and exploration technology. There are at least 60 billion barrels of inferred reserves which can be recovered with new technology. Including the oil that can be extracted from shale and other unconventional sources, the USGS believes the U.S. has 112.3 billion barrels of oil.
> 
> Since 1983, federal land available for oil and gas exploration in the western U.S. - where 67% of the nation's onshore oil reserves and 40% of natural gas reserves are located - has decreased by more than 60%. In total, more than 300 million onshore acres of federal land have been effectively removed from the market for oil exploration. The Clinton Administration's proposal to prohibit new road construction on 43 million acres of federal land will further reduce oil development as the roadless ban will affect areas where oil and gas exploration is being conducted.
> 
> The numbers are similarly disturbing for offshore oil development. Over the years, Congress has prohibited exploration and production on more than 460 million offshore acres, which includes virtually all of the best prospects for major new offshore discoveries outside the Western and Central Gulf of Mexico. This relatively narrow portion of the Gulf of Mexico produces the majority of current offshore oil and gas, but new reserves are increasingly short-lived. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that the federal portion of offshore drilling, which currently comprises 18% of U.S. production, will rise to nearly a third of domestic oil and gas supply within a decade. Failure to relax federal restrictions in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic Ocean and on the Pacific coast would amount to a de facto strangulation of domestic oil production capacity.
> 
> By far, the most dramatic example of the federal government's war against domestic oil production is the prohibition on development of the oil-rich Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The American Association of Petroleum Geologists estimates that ANWR contains at least 9.2 billion barrels of oil. Other estimates show that ANWR probably contains as much as 16 billion barrels, making ANWR the single most important oil reserve in the nation. But environmentalists, citing ecological concerns, have successfully stopped drilling in ANWR even though oil drilling equipment would cover just 2,000 of ANWR's 19 million acres.


----------



## Samson

JiggsCasey said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> um...how do you know if a prediction is true or not.
> 
> Do you know what a forecast is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, ummm, that's how policy is made. Forecasts... The point is, are those entities lying when they forecast such an imminent shortfall? ... If what I'm saying is hogwash, then the IEA, Pentagon, DoE, and EIA all must just be pumping the fear card, yes?
Click to expand...


Forecasts are educated guesses.

I can forecast that it may rain tomorrow, but you can't call me a "Liar" today.


----------



## rdean

Eightball said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever seen what proper land/enviro management looks like where strip mining has been done and finished?
> 
> Your bringing up past stuff, that isn't allowed, and is monitored by the EPA.
> 
> Some of the most beautiful areas of re-planting, and soil restoration is being done where strip mining has been completed.
> ******
> Bringing up the past, just kills what good can and is being done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What bull have you been reading?  I live in eastern KY.
> I have seen the streams run as black slurries from strip mining.
> 
> I also remember the last time the shale oil bollocks ran rampant here.
> Lots ripped off and nothing came of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your part of the country doesn't have oil shale reserves..........That yuck in your streams is from unregulated coal, and other types of strip mining.
> 
> Again, is past atrocities of unregulated mining...........
> 
> The EPA won't and doesn't allow that now.  Have you seen what good, and wise land management techniques result-in after strip mining is completed?  If you did, you wouldn't be posting the past yuck of unregulation of mining.
Click to expand...


You can't be serious.  Republicans deregulated OSHA and the EPA early in Bush's first term and replaced said regulations with "Volentary Compliance".  No way they would allow those industries to be re-regulated.  Not gonna happen.


----------



## Samson

rdean said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> What bull have you been reading?  I live in eastern KY.
> I have seen the streams run as black slurries from strip mining.
> 
> I also remember the last time the shale oil bollocks ran rampant here.
> Lots ripped off and nothing came of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your part of the country doesn't have oil shale reserves..........That yuck in your streams is from unregulated coal, and other types of strip mining.
> 
> Again, is past atrocities of unregulated mining...........
> 
> The EPA won't and doesn't allow that now.  Have you seen what good, and wise land management techniques result-in after strip mining is completed?  If you did, you wouldn't be posting the past yuck of unregulation of mining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't be serious.  Republicans deregulated OSHA and the EPA early in Bush's first term and replaced said regulations with "Volentary Compliance".  No way they would allow those industries to be re-regulated.  Not gonna happen.
Click to expand...


"Republicans deregulated OSHA and the EPA"

OSHA and EPA are regulatory agencies.

How do regulatory agencies become "deregulated?"


----------



## KissMy

2009 Assessment Updates for National Assessment of U.S. Oil and Gas Resources prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Not including off-shore or deep-water.

41.4BBO of Mean Conventional Oil Resources Undiscovered Technically Recoverable Resources Not including off-shore or deep-water.

47.6BBO of Total Mean Oil Resources Undiscovered Technically Recoverable Resources Not including off-shore or deep-water.


----------



## Oddball

uscitizen said:


> Ahh the shale oil scam.
> 
> Ever lived in an area that has been strip mined?


Yes...Craig, Colorado is currently being strip mined for coal to feed their electrical plant.

Once the seams are emptied, the land is being backfilled with rock and soil, to the point that you'd barely know the mining operation dug there.


----------



## Oddball

JiggsCasey said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, why are those federal and international agencies lying? I'm still waiting for anyone on this forum and many others to actually answer that question. No one dares, with good reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe its because there is no evidence of "lying?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly... They're not lying.... They're all telling the truth in their models of predicted 10 million b/d shortfall within 5 years... Every one of them. ... And that's why no one from the "nothing to see here" camp can dispute their findings.
> 
> Thanks.
Click to expand...

Malthus, John Kenneth Galbraith and Paul Ehrlich used the same kinds of models to predict the downfall of mankind, by outstripping its ability to feed and economically sustain itself.

How'd those predictions pan out?


----------



## KissMy

This Peak Oil scam has been going around for almost 100 years. What drove oil prices up to $145.29? Here is a clue. This coincided with the "Peak Oil" media blitz. Similar to the Enron Power Scam. Oil traders leased most of the oil tankers tying them up to restrict the transportation of oil to markets. They stored their oil in these tankers & parked them offshore so they would not count in inventory creating the illusion of an oil shortage. This is called "Floating Storage"



> Oil Stored at Sea Washes Out Rallies
> More oil is being produced than recession-stricken economies need, and prices have fallen as the extra crude fills storage terminals world-wide. Crude-futures prices are down 72% from the record hit in July... The oil sitting at sea adds an extra layer of uncertainty about the supply overhang, which traders said must be whittled down for oil prices to rebound. Tankers carrying up to two million barrels each aren't counted in official statistics. Ship trackers estimate that as many as 80 million barrels may be on the water, or more than twice the amount kept in the largest commercial storage center in the U.S., in Cushing, Okla.



What Event Happened on the very day oil stopped climbing past $145.29 & began its decline all the way down to $33.87? That is a $112 drop in oil prices!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FusqAtX0OJ8"]Oil Drops $112 because of this![/ame]

Amazing I Tell You, Utterly Amazing! If you think I am lying about the cause of the $112 drop, Check the date against the oil price charts. Now you see "Drill Baby Drill" worked. Don't you just hate it when Sarah Palin is smarter than you. This stuck all those Enron type traders with ship loads of oil that they lost their ass on. Now what event happened on the very day Oil Prices started to climb again from the $33 dollar low. Hint (New Administration). Check The Charts!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89CohSC3Odo&feature=related"]The Origins of Oil[/ame]

If Peak Oil was real it would be getting far more press than Global Warming, yet you hardly ever hear about it. You can't get more global warming if you had peak oil.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oo12pxjT_uw"]More Oil Found in Arctic[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHD4U2q_p4c&feature=related"]Myth: The World is Running Out of Oil 1[/ame]

Ever notice every time an oil company strikes a huge billion+ oil field it later gets revised down to only like 50 million barrels. Then years later they end up producing nearly what the original estimate was. Have they been hiding something?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukW9zveKKwk&feature=related"]Peak Oil Scam 1[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HX8Ih9N-JT0&feature=related"]Peak Oil Scam 2[/ame]

After congress got us into 2 wars I talked with a Democrat US congressman back in 2003 about how we need to produce here & stop funding terrorist & fighting for it in the Middle East. He told me that we were holding back on our US production in order to strategical use up all the cheap foreign oil first. This way we would get top dollar for our oil & pay off all our debt in the end. We also create a world of consumers of US products through Petro Dollar Recycling because of agreement with OPEC to only sell oil in US dollars. It is a crazy world ran by liers.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3kvrFUdc-0&feature=related"]Peak Oil is a fraud[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXzFvlIgPwo"]War on Peak Oil[/ame]


----------



## JiggsCasey

What's telling is exchange that you're learning about this topic as you go. It's clear you just The Googled "Peak Oil Myth" and posted whatever random videos you could find, working backwards from your hope-based conclusion.

Wow... your witnesses are George Bush, Rev. and kook Lindsay Graham, Alex Jones and some conspiracy-addled retired Air Force colonel who insists on long-debunked abiotic oil theory. How long did it take you to put together that amalgam of utter fail?



KissMy said:


> This Peak Oil scam has been going around for almost 100 years.



I love when posters like you just throw out random time references, and don't make any effort to back up what you're saying, by whom, and in what context. Hollow much? 

Either way, 100 years ago, we didn't consume 85 million barrels of it per day. Regardless, it wasn't hard to fathom that the stuff was quite finite, and it is, as we're seeing today.



KissMy said:


> What drove oil prices up to $145.29? Here is a clue. This coincided with the "Peak Oil" media blitz.



And yet, just a few paragraphs later, you squawked that it would be getting "far more press" if true. So which is it? A "blitz" or a lack of coverage? You seem to be arguing both sides of the media coin.

The reality is, the mainstream media is corporate, and the corporate media doesn't cover tangible unpleasant realities like this. Tends to cause market panic. And no, climate change is not nearly as tangible, not that the TV media gives it much coverage at all either.



KissMy said:


> Similar to the Enron Power Scam. Oil traders leased most of the oil tankers tying them up to restrict the transportation of oil to markets. They stored their oil in these tankers & parked them offshore so they would not count in inventory creating the illusion of an oil shortage. This is called "Floating Storage"



Yawn. A seperate sub-topic altogether, and completely irrelevant to the topic of global field depletion. You keep making allusions to peripheral aspects, 

All the 4,200 tankers in the world, filled to the hilt, wouldn't amount to but a couple months of energy at current rates of consumption. So to pretend there's some longterm glut just because a few haven't gone through the transaction process and sit off shore is really rather laughable. But, considering your entire premise in this forum has been laughable, it's hardly surprising.

"Floating Storage" says absolutely nothing of longer-term oil field depletion. Sorry. Good try.



KissMy said:


> Oil Stored at Sea Washes Out Rallies
> More oil is being produced than recession-stricken economies need, and prices have fallen as the extra crude fills storage terminals world-wide. Crude-futures prices are down 72% from the record hit in July... The oil sitting at sea adds an extra layer of uncertainty about the supply overhang, which traders said must be whittled down for oil prices to rebound. Tankers carrying up to two million barrels each aren't counted in official statistics. *Ship trackers estimate that as many as 80 million barrels may be on the water,* or more than twice the amount kept in the largest commercial storage center in the U.S., in Cushing, Okla.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Oh my god!!! A whole ONE DAY'S worth of oil is still sitting in port!!! That proves it's all a scam!!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> I'll get the rest of your reverse-logic goofiness a little later...
Click to expand...


----------



## KissMy

In 1919 the director of the U.S. Bureau of Mines predicted that "within the next two to five years the oil fields of this country will reach their maximum production, and from that time on we will face an ever-increasing decline."

That same year, National Geographic magazine predicted that oil shales in Colorado and Utah would be exploited to produce oil, because the demand for oil could not be met by existing production.

In January 1920, Dr. George Otis Smith, Director of the United States Geological Survey, in commenting upon our oil supply stated: "The position of the United States in regard to oil can best be characterized as precarious."

In May 1920, Dr. Smith said: "Americans will have to depend on foreign sources or use less oil, or perhaps both.

In 1920, David White, of the United States Geological Survey, stated: "On the whole, therefore, we must expect that, unless our consumption is checked, we shall by 1925 be dependent on foreign oil fields to the extent of 150,000,000 barrels and possibly as much as 200,000,000 of crude each year, except insofar as the situation may at that time, perhaps, be helped to a slieht extent by shale oil. Add to this probability that within 5 years--perhaps 3 years only--our domestic production will begin to fall off with increasing rapidity, due to the exhaustion of our reserves"


----------



## JiggsCasey

KissMy said:


> In 1919 the director of the U.S. Bureau of Mines predicted that "within the next two to five years the oil fields of this country will reach their maximum production, and from that time on we will face an ever-increasing decline."



Undoubtedly true, considering he was talking about existing fields. He makes no mention of new discoveries. The difference today is that they're NOT FINDING NEW DISCOVERIES of any significance. Get it yet?



KissMy said:


> That same year, National Geographic magazine predicted that oil shales in Colorado and Utah would be exploited to produce oil, because the demand for oil could not be met by existing production.



Ok, what's inaccurate about that? Have we not attempted to lean more heavily on shale and sands? Again, he mentions "existing production."



KissMy said:


> In January 1920, Dr. George Otis Smith, Director of the United States Geological Survey, in commenting upon our oil supply stated: "The position of the United States in regard to oil can best be characterized as precarious."
> 
> In May 1920, Dr. Smith said: "Americans will have to depend on foreign sources or use less oil, or perhaps both.



Once more, what was he wrong about? We have leaned much more heavily on foreign oil for decades, and that increases each year.



KissMy said:


> In 1920, David White, of the United States Geological Survey, stated: "On the whole, therefore, we must expect that, unless our consumption is checked, we shall by 1925 be dependent on foreign oil fields to the extent of 150,000,000 barrels and possibly as much as 200,000,000 of crude each year, except insofar as the situation may at that time, perhaps, be helped to a slieht extent by shale oil. Add to this probability that within 5 years--perhaps 3 years only--our domestic production will begin to fall off with increasing rapidity, due to the exhaustion of our reserves"



Again, they're talking about existing capacity back then. Surely oil exploration was in its infancy, and there were obviously far more discoveries to be unveiled, discoveries which peaked in the 50s and 60s. Unfortunately for your half-story argument, this continent has been scoured for new oil using technology that would make your head hurt and they are not finding new reserves to keep up with today's demand rate.

Do better.

Where is the oil?  In what amount to "offset" 85 million barrels per day of consumption? How about 95 million barrels in 7-10 years?

You seem unwilling to provide those statistics. That's because they don't exist. There is no new capacity that is going to support 85-95 million barrels of consumption per day. We are skimming off the top of existing fields that are rapidly dying, all while nations are exploding with new demand.  That is why the world economy is floundering, and will get far worse.


----------



## Oddball

Too bad the oil markets don't agree with your doom-and-gloomery.


----------



## JiggsCasey

Dude said:


> Too bad the oil markets don't agree with your doom-and-gloomery.



Actually, they do. Again, dude... I'll ask you once more....  why is the IEA, the Pentagon, the DoE, the EIA and the men in this video somehow lying? For what purpose:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUVY2qrEfd8]YouTube - ASPO.TV News: Peak Oil Reality - Production & Depletion Issues[/ame]

Perhaps you'll venture a guess at some point. You know, something a bit more convincing than punting to "it's a big conspiracy!!"


----------



## Oddball

Whoop-de-do.

If what they were saying is true, then the market price for crude and RBOB gasoline would be going through the roof, as the demand increases and supply dwindles.

But it's not and prices remain relatively stable.

I'll take the information coming from thousands upon thousands of traders and consumers over the yammerings of a few bureaucrats any day of the week.


----------



## KissMy

I just checked the EIA charts for the last 3 years & other than (Other OECD) Crude Oil production is rising in every sector of the globe.

United States ........ Production is Rising
Other OECD .......... Production is Declining
Total OECD............ Production is Rising
Non-OECD ............. Production is Rising
OPEC5 .................. Production is Rising
Former U.S.S.R ..... Production is Rising
Other Non-OECD .... Production is Rising
Total Non-OECD ..... Production is Rising
Total World Supply . Production is Rising


----------



## Old Rocks

Peak oil was defined by Dr. Hubbert.

M. King Hubbert &#149; Hubbert Peak of Oil Production

 The late Dr. M. King Hubbert, geophysicist, is well known as a world authority on the estimation of energy resources and on the prediction of their patterns of discovery and depletion. 

He was probably the best known geophysicist in the world to the general public because of his startling prediction, first made public in 1949, that the fossil fuel era would be of very short duration. "Energy from Fossil Fuels, Science" [scanned, 260 kb] [Printing aids] [February 4, 1949] 

His prediction in 1956 that U.S.oil production would peak in about 1970 and decline thereafter was scoffed at then but his analysis has since proved to be remarkably accurate. See Nuclear Energy and the Fossil Fuels by M. King Hubbert, Chief Consultant (General Geology), Exploration and Production Research Division, Shell Development Company, Publication Number 95, Houston, Texas, June 1956, Presented before the Spring Meeting of the Southern District, American Petroleum Institute, Plaza Hotel, San Antonio, Texas, March 7-8-9, 1956


----------



## JiggsCasey

KissMy said:


> I just checked the EIA charts for the last 3 years & other than (Other OECD) Crude Oil production is rising in every sector of the globe.
> 
> United States ........ Production is Rising
> Other OECD .......... Production is Declining
> Total OECD............ Production is Rising
> Non-OECD ............. Production is Rising
> OPEC5 .................. Production is Rising
> Former U.S.S.R ..... Production is Rising
> Other Non-OECD .... Production is Rising
> Total Non-OECD ..... Production is Rising
> Total World Supply . Production is Rising



is linking beyond your intrawebz skill level, or are you purposely not linking and hoping no one asks you for context?


----------



## Oddball

Markets don't lie, Mr. Malthus.


----------



## JiggsCasey

Dude said:


> Markets don't lie, Mr. Malthus.



i see a very sick market, and getting sicker. so, no, they don't lie...


----------



## KissMy

JiggsCasey said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just checked the EIA charts for the last 3 years & other than (Other OECD) Crude Oil production is rising in every sector of the globe.
> 
> United States ........ Production is Rising
> Other OECD .......... Production is Declining
> Total OECD............ Production is Rising
> Non-OECD ............. Production is Rising
> OPEC5 .................. Production is Rising
> Former U.S.S.R ..... Production is Rising
> Other Non-OECD .... Production is Rising
> Total Non-OECD ..... Production is Rising
> Total World Supply . Production is Rising
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is linking beyond your intrawebz skill level, or are you purposely not linking and hoping no one asks you for context?
Click to expand...


I gave you the source. I said it was from the EIA. It is a Excel spreadsheet. Here is the link. They always manage to keep production in line with demand so it is hard to tell what is really going on. If a pipeline gets blown up in Nigeria it drops their sector & others rise to compensate. There is always spare capacity. As the charts below show, when demand dropped because of the recession then so did supply. Now that demand is rising so is supply. We are currently way over supplied. There is a oil glut in "Floating Storage" Oil producers running out of storage space.


----------



## Oddball

JiggsCasey said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Markets don't lie, Mr. Malthus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i see a very sick market, and getting sicker. so, no, they don't lie...
Click to expand...

You see doom and gloom behind every bush.


----------



## KissMy

One of the Great Secrets of Commodity Investing


> Earlier this decade, people were worried the U.S. was running out of natural gas... a vital commodity we use to produce chemicals, heat our homes, and generate electricity. From 1980 to 1999, domestic natural gas reserves fell 18%. Production only grew 1% a year on average. In short, we were pumping out more than we were finding... for nearly two decades.
> 
> Then, about 10 years ago, two incredible technologies entered the industry in a big way: Hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. Through the use of these technologies, we've learned that the U.S. sits on top of an incredible amount of natural gas. We've gone from dwindling reserves and plans to import gas... to boasting the world's second-largest hoard of the stuff, just behind Russia. You want energy security? You want natural gas.
> 
> Shale rock is thin layers of fine-grain sediment, stacked like pages in a book. There is nearly no "conductivity" in shale, which means fluids like oil and gas can't move through it. But shales are typically full of organic material and hold enormous amounts of oil and gas locked up inside.
> 
> In my college days, we learned shale was the oil and gas "kitchen," the source of the black gold we wanted to find. Some of the good stuff would migrate out into sand stones, where we could get it out. Other than thinking about them as source rocks, we ignored shale... until hydraulic fracturing opened our eyes.
> 
> Fracking is a process that uses high-pressure fluids to force the layers of shale apart. Carried in the fluid are tiny grains of "proppant"  sand or ceramic spheres  that hold the layers of shale open after the pressure from the fluid fades.


----------



## JiggsCasey

KissMy said:


> One of the Great Secrets of Commodity Investing
> 
> 
> 
> Earlier this decade, people were worried the U.S. was running out of natural gas... a vital commodity we use to produce chemicals, heat our homes, and generate electricity. From 1980 to 1999, domestic natural gas reserves fell 18%. Production only grew 1% a year on average. In short, we were pumping out more than we were finding... for nearly two decades.
> 
> Then, about 10 years ago, two incredible technologies entered the industry in a big way: Hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. Through the use of these technologies, we've learned that the U.S. sits on top of an incredible amount of natural gas. We've gone from dwindling reserves and plans to import gas... to boasting the world's second-largest hoard of the stuff, just behind Russia. You want energy security? You want natural gas.
> 
> Shale rock is thin layers of fine-grain sediment, stacked like pages in a book. There is nearly no "conductivity" in shale, which means fluids like oil and gas can't move through it. But shales are typically full of organic material and hold enormous amounts of oil and gas locked up inside.
> 
> In my college days, we learned shale was the oil and gas "kitchen," the source of the black gold we wanted to find. Some of the good stuff would migrate out into sand stones, where we could get it out. Other than thinking about them as source rocks, we ignored shale... until hydraulic fracturing opened our eyes.
> 
> Fracking is a process that uses high-pressure fluids to force the layers of shale apart. Carried in the fluid are tiny grains of "proppant" &#8211; sand or ceramic spheres &#8211; that hold the layers of shale open after the pressure from the fluid fades.
Click to expand...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZe1AeH0Qz8]YouTube - GASLAND Trailer 2010[/ame]

Ah yes... The shale gas silver bullet, trotted out by "nothing to see here" denialists who Google-spam anything they can find in a desperate attempt to minimize the realities of global oil depletion. ... It's like the default fallback position.

Vastly overestimated reserve totals, and devastating to the environment... Not that cons ever include environmental costs into EROEI... 

Again, however, you seem to be arguing both sides of the coin... If we were "way over supplied" with crude sitting offshore, why in God's name would we "need" to embark on expanded hydraulic fracturing for dirtier, heavier oils and poorer-grade gas? Further, what is a bit more gas going to do for rubber, plastic, pesticides, fertilizer, etc. industries?

Which is it? Is there plenty of oil, or isn't there? And if so, where is it? You continue to REFUSE to show the forum where this hope-based belief system comes from. Where is the oil? In what amount? And, even if they DID miraculously find the 4-5 Saudi Arabia's worth of new oil to offset existing dying capacity, it will take 8-10 years to get that energy to the market. Collapse is starting now. 

At some point, you'll actually begin to get it. But probably not until you lose your job and/or your municipality starts cut way back on basic civil services. And even then, you'll probably blame liberals for it all. It's what you guys do.

One last time... Where IS the oil?


----------



## JiggsCasey

KissMy said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just checked the EIA charts for the last 3 years & other than (Other OECD) Crude Oil production is rising in every sector of the globe.
> 
> United States ........ Production is Rising
> Other OECD .......... Production is Declining
> Total OECD............ Production is Rising
> Non-OECD ............. Production is Rising
> OPEC5 .................. Production is Rising
> Former U.S.S.R ..... Production is Rising
> Other Non-OECD .... Production is Rising
> Total Non-OECD ..... Production is Rising
> Total World Supply . Production is Rising
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is linking beyond your intrawebz skill level, or are you purposely not linking and hoping no one asks you for context?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave you the source. I said it was from the EIA. It is a Excel spreadsheet. Here is the link. They always manage to keep production in line with demand so it is hard to tell what is really going on. If a pipeline gets blown up in Nigeria it drops their sector & others rise to compensate. There is always spare capacity. As the charts below show, when demand dropped because of the recession then so did supply. Now that demand is rising so is supply. We are currently way over supplied. There is a oil glut in "Floating Storage" Oil producers running out of storage space.
Click to expand...


LOL... You need to take a much closer look at what you're trying to present with your EIA spreadsheet, hopey.

Look at the 2006 total world supply average vs. 2009 total world supply average... That's a DOWNWARD slope, chap.... Not up. ... Demand went up til 2008, and then DOWN after the crash and recession of 2008. ... Supply affects the economy, which affects demand, not the other way around.

I can see why you didn't wanna link it at first, and just wrote "is rising," and hoped no one followed up. ... Your premise just fell on its ass.

Again, WHERE is the new oil going forward that will satisfy 85 million - 95 million barrels per day of demand consumption? You won't answer because you can't find it. You can't find it because it doesn't exist. Period, end of story.


----------



## KissMy

I just checked the EIA charts for the last 3 years & other than (Other OECD) Crude Oil production is rising in every sector of the globe.

United States ........ 2007 8.46mbpd - 2010 9.46mbpd - Production is Rising
Other OECD .......... 2007 13.0mbpd - 2010 11.95mbpd - Production is Declining
Non-OECD ............. 2007 63.04mbpd - 2010 64.54mbpd - Production is Rising
OPEC5 .................. 2007 34.37mbpd - 2010 34.51mbpd - Production is Rising
Former U.S.S.R ..... 2007 12.61mbpd - 2010 13.11mbpd - Production is Rising
Other Non-OECD .... 2007 16.07mbpd - 2010 16.92mbpd - Production is Rising
Total Non-OECD ..... 2007 63.04mbpd - 2010 64.54mbpd - Production is Rising
Total World Supply . 2007 84.5mbpd - 2010 85.95mbpd - Production is Rising


----------



## JiggsCasey

KissMy said:


> I just checked the EIA charts for the last 3 years & other than (Other OECD) Crude Oil production is rising in every sector of the globe.
> 
> United States ........ 2007 8.46mbpd - 2010 9.46mbpd - Production is Rising
> Other OECD .......... 2007 13.0mbpd - 2010 11.95mbpd - Production is Declining
> Non-OECD ............. 2007 63.04mbpd - 2010 64.54mbpd - Production is Rising
> OPEC5 .................. 2007 34.37mbpd - 2010 34.51mbpd - Production is Rising
> Former U.S.S.R ..... 2007 12.61mbpd - 2010 13.11mbpd - Production is Rising
> Other Non-OECD .... 2007 16.07mbpd - 2010 16.92mbpd - Production is Rising
> Total Non-OECD ..... 2007 63.04mbpd - 2010 64.54mbpd - Production is Rising
> Total World Supply . 2007 84.5mbpd - 2010 85.95mbpd - Production is Rising



Dude, you're comparing one quarter of 2010 to the average of 2007... What matters is the annual average of total production from that year, to 2009. Try and follow along here.

Total 2010 figures are obviously not in yet.

World oil production has largely flatlined since 2004, while demand has continued to soar. That should sound alarm bells with anyone thinking rationally. Why is this fact lost on people like you, who play convenient mind games with numbers?


----------



## KissMy

Who cares where they get the oil. We are oversupplied. Prices are high from weak dollar. I will bet you in 10 years you will look back & see the world has not peaked in 2005, 2008 or 2010, because for the last 91 years all these predictions have been wrong. That being said it is highly likely the growth of population, industry & living standards around the world may cause the growth in oil demand to out strip the growth in oil production.

Even if they are true I could care less. I hardly use oil any how. I have a 5kw wind generator & 5kw solar panels with 10kw battery storage. I have a farm & can grow & hunt all my family needs. I am waiting for them to build a decent an electric pick-up truck. The wind blew hard last week & all the excess power blew the Chinese wind charge control regulator. This prevented over-speed braking on my wind generator & all the blades flew off. Talk about pissed. The average person is not going to be able to deal with this shit. I am building a better controller now. I own 10% of a POET ethanol plant & 8% of a bio-diesel plant. I use ethanol or bio-diesel in all my vehicles. My home is well insulated with spray foam insulation with thermal windows & doors. I use all fluorescent lighting, geothermal heat pump, rain capture cistern, recycle & use a clothesline instead of a dryer. It will suck a bit but I will make it.

I am greener than any liberal, democrat, hippie I know. The retards all bash big oil while they are filling up with the stuff all the time. It is laughable. On the bright side having a country full of energy wasters leaves a lot of room to conserve if a peak actually occurred. Plenty of time left to prepare to ride the slide. The fear that these climate & peak doomers put into the population causes prices of shit to skyrocket. The massive amounts of money being made off the citizens with these fear tactics by the perpetrators of these myths. Nearly all of them are raking in big money from these fear tactics.

Money spent to buy oil does not disappear. Oil producers invest or spend it. Hence rising oil prices shift wealth and income around the globe, not destroy it. To the extent that oil producers save more than oil consumers, this has a net slowing effect on the economy. But nothing like the Armageddon described in doomsters&#8217; forecasts. This reduced growth in GDP slows the growth in demand for oil. If prices rise so that real global GDP slows to 2%/year (very roughly), oil demand no longer increases. If oil prices rocket high enough, global GDP will actually fall (historically a rare event, except during wars). Investment in renewable will skyrocket & oil demand will fall further.


----------



## JiggsCasey

KissMy said:


> Who cares where they get the oil. We are oversupplied. Prices are high from weak dollar. I will bet you in 10 years you will look back & see the world has not peaked in 2005, 2008 or 2010, because for the last 91 years all these predictions have been wrong. *That being said it is highly likely the growth of population, industry & living standards around the world may cause the growth in oil demand to out strip the growth in oil production.*



Yay for you, Capt. Obvious! Good to see you're finally getting it. Half of it, anyway.



KissMy said:


> Even if they are true I could care less. I hardly use oil any how. I have a 5kw wind generator & 5kw solar panels with 10kw battery storage. I have a farm & can grow & hunt all my family needs. I am waiting for them to build a decent an electric pick-up truck. The wind blew hard last week & all the excess power blew the Chinese wind charge control regulator. This prevented over-speed braking on my wind generator & all the blades flew off. Talk about pissed. The average person is not going to be able to deal with this shit. I am building a better controller now. I own 10% of a POET ethanol plant & 8% of a bio-diesel plant. I use ethanol or bio-diesel in all my vehicles. My home is well insulated with spray foam insulation with thermal windows & doors. I use all fluorescent lighting, geothermal heat pump, rain capture cistern, recycle & use a clothesline instead of a dryer. It will suck a bit but I will make it.



Not that I believe much of this above about you, but good for you. Unfortunately, 99.9% of the people around you have not invested in those sustainability methods, and could never afford the installation of it. But thanks for expanding on the compassion-free stereotype (for his fellow American) on the modern con man. Way to give a shit about anyone but yourself there, champ.



KissMy said:


> I am greener than any liberal, democrat, hippie I know. The retards all bash big oil while they are filling up with the stuff all the time. It is laughable. On the bright side having a country full of energy wasters leaves a lot of room to conserve if a peak actually occurred. Plenty of time left to prepare to ride the slide. The fear that these climate & peak doomers put into the population causes prices of shit to skyrocket. The massive amounts of money being made off the citizens with these fear tactics by the perpetrators of these myths. Nearly all of them are raking in big money from these fear tactics.



LOL! ... There you go again, trying to argue both sides. So which is it? Is peak a supply/demand problem, or is it all just because "liberal doomers" are "driving the price up" with their "fear tactics?"

My gawd, you're all over the place in this thread. Your argument has been dismantled, your rationale revealed as laughable angry con man rhetoric, and your arrogance undeniable.



KissMy said:


> Money spent to buy oil does not disappear.



No, just the oil. 

Review the basic laws of thermodynamics, genius. 1) Energy can be converted from one form to another, it cannot be created or destroyed. 2) In all energy exchanges, if no energy leaves or enters the system, the potential (usable) energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state. 

Despite what you cons think, showing up at the bank window with gobs of cash doesn't magically put more oil in the ground.



KissMy said:


> Oil producers invest or spend it. Hence rising oil prices shift wealth and income around the globe, not destroy it. To the extent that oil producers save more than oil consumers, this has a net slowing effect on the economy. But nothing like the Armageddon described in doomsters&#8217; forecasts. This reduced growth in GDP slows the growth in demand for oil. If prices rise so that real global GDP slows to 2%/year (very roughly), oil demand no longer increases. If oil prices rocket high enough, global GDP will actually fall (historically a rare event, except during wars). Investment in renewable will skyrocket & oil demand will fall further.



None of this "fun with basic economics" self-rationalization says anything about the supply:demand ratio.   The fact that the rise in price affects growth in an adverse way INDICATES the ramifications of peak oil!!! Hello!!???? Is this thing on? So, you've just admitted what happens. Well done.  ... But, amazingly, you adhere to the "markets will sort everything out" principle, as if it will all transition seamlessly into alternatives. ... That kind of paradigm shift in a transition to alternative infrastructure will take 25-30 years. Collpase is starting now.... You clearly don't have any idea what a 10 million b/pd shortfall will mean for the global economy. 

We had BETTER enact a Marshall Plan for renewables immediately. Unfortunately, there are just enough people, like you, who don't get it, contradict their own argument, and believe the "market will fix everything," to hell with civil breakdown. They exhaust their efforts trying to convince people that there is both a problem and no problem.

Cons are so dumb.


----------



## KissMy

There is no need for a marshal plan. We just need to change a couple of laws.

1rst) - The biggest obstacle of all is selling power to the grid. I can build 10 - 1.5mw wind turbines on my windy 1000 acers for far less less than 1 million each. But I can't get the utility to buy the power. There are 3 different power utility companies that have lines running through my land & 1 has a 161kv 10 wire transmission line. Democrat Tom Carnahan received $900 million from stimulus & has made deals with all of the utilities so the small guy is shut out. *This shit has to change! *

2nd) - The biggest expense of owning an automobile is the mandatory license, tax, title & insurance. People would buy a small electric auto for short daily commutes & have a large gas backup auto for big loads & long distance. The problem is you have to pay all these fees for the one sitting in the drive most of the time. There needs to be a portable license tag / insurance program that transfers to both autos that only allows you to drive one at a time so the cost would be the same as just one vehicle.

*These 2 changes would create a green revolution without a need for stimulus.*

Also just because someone made a global peak oil graph does not in any way mean oil production will follow that chart. The only accurate chart is one made from data leading up to the date the chart was made. The second half of that peak oil chart is pure fairytale speculation. As evidenced on the US oil production chart below we would not have peaked in 1971 if it were not for politics. If it peaked due to geology it would have peaked in or after 1985 had it not been for congress oil production restrictions imposed, OPEC flooding our markets with cheap foreign oil & the limiting size of the Alaska Pipeline. Politics in other countries around the world have also affected their production. Peak production is not based solely on geology.


----------



## KissMy

> World total oil production capacity in April 2010 is at 90.09 million b/d. World production capacity is measured here as the sum of world liquids production excluding biofuels plus total OPEC spare capacity excluding Iraq, Venezuela and Nigeria.
> 
> Total world liquid fuels production of 86.62 million b/d. Liquids production for March 2010.
> 
> Non-OPEC oil production has been increasing steadily since late 2009, the OPEC cartel has a large surplus of oil production capacity of 5+ million barrels per day, and OECD crude oil stocks are at very high levels compared to the past five years above a 1000 million barrels.- The Oil Drum





> Global oil demand for 2011 is expected to rise by 1.6% or 1.3 mb/d year-on-year to 87.8 mb/d, assuming consensus trends in the world economy, crude prices and efficiency gains. - IEA / OMR



There has been no peak oil to date. With no new discoveries peak would not arrive until 2015. That's the thing about new discoveries, you don't know what you will discover. The peak oilers were out in force saying we peaked in 2005. Now they are silent & peak has been pushed off until 2015. Oil producers say it will be 2035 - 2050.


----------



## Big Fitz

JiggsCasey said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Markets don't lie, Mr. Malthus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i see a very sick market, and getting sicker. so, no, they don't lie...
Click to expand...

Dorkter... you have the chart upside down.


----------



## KissMy

Awe, The Peak Oil doomers are busted again. The chart below shows production capacity is outpacing actual production. We also have a glut of oil in storage. The price is only high because of the weaking US Dollar. THERE IS NO PEAK OIL.


----------



## JiggsCasey

moron, that is all liquid fuels... not light crude...  your graph includes production from the vastly non-viable tar sands ... 

your last 2-3 posts are beyond laughable.... you officially don't know what you're talking about... this was confirmed by the fact that you actually believe the last 39 years of U.S. oil production decline is a mere result of politics, not geology. ... Right, of course. ... clearly you know far more than petrol geologist, the IEA, the Pentagon, and the Dept. of Energy.

idiot.


----------



## Big Fitz

> your graph includes production from the vastly non-viable tar sands



interesting that most Canadian Oil, our largest supplier, which provides us almost half of our liquid fuel is getting it from tar sands.  Oops.


----------



## Samson

JiggsCasey said:


> moron, that is all liquid fuels... not light crude...  your graph includes production from the vastly non-viable tar sands ...
> 
> your last 2-3 posts are beyond laughable.... you officially don't know what you're talking about... this was confirmed by the fact that you actually believe the last 39 years of U.S. oil production decline is a mere result of politics, not geology. ... Right, of course. ... clearly you know far more than petrol geologist, the IEA, the Pentagon, and the Dept. of Energy.
> 
> idiot.





Big Fitz said:


> your graph includes production from the vastly non-viable tar sands
> 
> 
> 
> 
> interesting that most Canadian Oil, our largest supplier, which provides us almost half of our liquid fuel is getting it from tar sands.  Oops.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I wondered that too: How are US refineries receiving "Syn-crude" (Crude from tar sands in Canada) if this source is "vastly non-viable?"

Suncor Refineries in Denver are owned by Canadians for the specific purpose of marketing Syn-Crude products that arrive via pipeline from Alberta.


----------



## JiggsCasey

well, if you're content with strip mining vast expanses of western canada for an energy source that yields something like 1.5:1, and at best 4:1, on your investment, and you honestly believe that is viable, longterm, for an economic paradigm that demands 86 million barrels per day with 5-7% growth, well... good luck... 

rest your hat on gummy tar sands all you like... it's not light crude, and it's not going to maintain growth. Period, end of story.

The fact that our government is desperately turning to it more and more only underscores the reality of global light crude oil depletion. If light crude production wasn't slowly dying all over the world, there would be no need to frack rock and burn tar sediment at the rates we currently lean upon. It's dirtier, heavier oil, and not nearly as versatile for industries that use oil in their products.


----------



## Samson

JiggsCasey said:


> well, if you're content with strip mining vast expanses of western canada for an energy source that yields something like 1.5:1, and at best 4:1, on your investment, and you honestly believe that is viable, longterm, for an economic paradigm that demands 86 million barrels per day with 5-7% growth, well... good luck...
> 
> rest your hat on gummy tar sands all you like... it's not light crude, and it's not going to maintain growth. Period, end of story.
> 
> The fact that our government is desperately turning to it more and more only underscores the reality of global light crude oil depletion. If light crude production wasn't slowly dying all over the world, there would be no need to frack rock and burn tar sediment at the rates we currently lean upon. It's dirtier, heavier oil, and not nearly as versatile for industries that use oil in their products.



I thought the USA daily demand was 180 million barrels


----------



## JiggsCasey

Samson said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> well, if you're content with strip mining vast expanses of western canada for an energy source that yields something like 1.5:1, and at best 4:1, on your investment, and you honestly believe that is viable, longterm, for an economic paradigm that demands 86 million barrels per day with 5-7% growth, well... good luck...
> 
> rest your hat on gummy tar sands all you like... it's not light crude, and it's not going to maintain growth. Period, end of story.
> 
> The fact that our government is desperately turning to it more and more only underscores the reality of global light crude oil depletion. If light crude production wasn't slowly dying all over the world, there would be no need to frack rock and burn tar sediment at the rates we currently lean upon. It's dirtier, heavier oil, and not nearly as versatile for industries that use oil in their products.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the USA daily demand was 180 million barrels
Click to expand...


the world consumes 86 million barrels per day; the U.S. accounts for roughly one-quarter of that consumption.

in the absence of recession/depression, this demand was  growing...  but, as we know, we are in recession, and demand will no longer be allowed to grow -- because supply can not and will not keep up. ... thus, a perpetual state of recession exists (or eventually, worse)....


----------



## Big Fitz

Moving goalposts or changing sports?

First it's we're running out of oil!

Then it was "We're running out of light sweet crude!  Nothing else will work!  work as well... I mean"

Now it's "Well if you insist on using gummy tar sands...  it's not really oil and doesn't meet MY definition of practical..."

The peak oil theory is the only thing that seems to have peaked... and is producing less and less with every passing year we find more ways to make fuel economical from so many sources.  Sure, it's not bubbling out of the ground in as many places.  But to say that means there's no more easy oil left there's no oil left at all.

ludicrous... like you.


----------



## Samson

Big Fitz said:


> Moving goalposts or changing sports?
> 
> First it's we're running out of oil!
> 
> Then it was "We're running out of light sweet crude!  Nothing else will work!  work as well... I mean"
> 
> Now it's "Well if you insist on using gummy tar sands...  it's not really oil and doesn't meet MY definition of practical..."
> 
> 
> .



Dejavu all over again


----------



## Big Fitz

Thanks Yogi.


----------



## Samson

Big Fitz said:


> Thanks Yogi.




Its the same discussion every time: 

"Evul Corporations want to Destroy the Planet to Make a Profit......"

...how? 

"By Developing Dead-End Resources!!!"

The absurdity of this arguement always entertains me, and always reminds me that there is a growing population that hasn't a clue.


----------



## Big Fitz

Tis why those who are peak oils are never capitalists, but communist in nature.


----------



## Samson

Big Fitz said:


> Tis why those who are peak oils are never capitalists, but communist in nature.



Well, "conveniently communist."

They tend to ignore the fact that communists, while never worrying about profitability, also never worried about environmental contamination.


----------



## JiggsCasey

Samson said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Yogi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its the same discussion every time:
> 
> "Evul Corporations want to Destroy the Planet to Make a Profit......"
> 
> ...how?
> 
> "By Developing Dead-End Resources!!!"
> 
> The absurdity of this arguement always entertains me, and always reminds me that there is a growing population that hasn't a clue.
Click to expand...


"Hasn't a clue?" That's rich... 

This from a poster who had no idea how much oil the United States consumes per day.

Really, when you reveal yourself in such an embarrassingly misinformed way, you should really think twice before running your mouth with straw man arguments and hollow allusions to communism.


----------



## JiggsCasey

Big Fitz said:


> The peak oil theory is the only thing that seems to have peaked... and is producing less and less with every passing year we find more ways to make fuel economical from so many sources.  Sure, it's not bubbling out of the ground in as many places.  But to say that means there's no more easy oil left there's no oil left at all.
> 
> ludicrous... like you.



Hey there... It's the conceptually challenged Frank Drebbin who slinked from the discussion weeks ago, back for more.

Peak oil is simply about demand outstripping supply. You can change the definition of what constitutes commercially viable energy sources all you like. But until you show how much there is for industrial nations needing 86 million barrels of the stuff each day (and growing), your "nothing to see here" rhetoric rings rather hollow. Not that your goofy pablum has ever amounted to much of anything throughout the entirety of the energy subforum, from what I've seen.

Bitumen (oil shale) and kerogen (tar sands) will never do what light crude does for capitalism. It takes far too much energy to produce it and get it to market. We are where we are today due to incredibly abundant CHEAP oil. .... The fact that we're increasingly turning to heavy oil at the same time the global economy stands on the brink only underscores the FACT that there is a serious energy supply problem for 7+ billion people. And it's beginning now, not just for our grandchildren to worry about.

I'm still waiting for any of you arrogant geniuses to explain how or why the IEA, the DoE, the Pengaton, the EIA, Lloyds, Total Oil, ASPO and countless whistle-blowing petroleum geologists are somehow lying. Or just how they're wrong in their models. None of you can do it, because even though you're all convinced you know everything, you can't find an explanation for why those entities all forecast a 10 million dollar shortfall between supply and demand by 2015, and most sooner. If you're smarter than those entities, please refine your message to them by writing a convincing rough draft that we'll all be happy to edit for grammar and style. We can't wait for you to put a halt to Sustainability initiatives all over the planet by calming any and all concerns. 

Because surely if we just drill everywhere, throw lots of money to Big Oil, and pray wicked hard, God will put more oil in the ground for us all to enjoy, and maintain "growth."


----------



## Big Fitz

Models also predicted a global temperature rise of 10 degrees by now.  Models predicted mass starvations and death too.

Models are only as good as the garbage you put into them.  

Aren't you getting tired running around with that goalpost on your back?


----------



## Samson

JiggsCasey said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Yogi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its the same discussion every time:
> 
> "Evul Corporations want to Destroy the Planet to Make a Profit......"
> 
> ...how?
> 
> "By Developing Dead-End Resources!!!"
> 
> The absurdity of this arguement always entertains me, and always reminds me that there is a growing population that hasn't a clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Hasn't a clue?" That's rich...
> 
> This from a poster who had no idea how much oil the United States consumes per day.
> 
> Really, when you reveal yourself in such an embarrassingly misinformed way, you should really think twice before running your mouth with straw man arguments and hollow allusions to communism.
Click to expand...


Meh...that's all you got, huh?

But it's typical of the clueless: Find one data point, and extrapolate it rather than admit the massive fail of every absurd point in one's own arguement.

Regardless, continue to cut-and-paste more Anti-Globalist nonsense, and ridiculously illogical babblings. 

The stupidity still amuses me.


----------



## JiggsCasey

Big Fitz said:


> Models also predicted a global temperature rise of 10 degrees by now.  Models predicted mass starvations and death too.



By who? Who said that? Were they models by our department of defense? Our own Dept. of Energy? By the International Energy Agency? You're comparing apples to oranges, and extrapolating a deeply flawed conclusion. It's what people like you do, liar.

Run along now. Adults are talking.


----------



## JiggsCasey

Samson said:


> Meh...that's all you got, huh?



The undeniable fact that you don't have a basic grasp of the subject matter before pontificating about it? Do I need much else? lol... 



Samson said:


> But it's typical of the clueless: Find one data point, and extrapolate it rather than admit the massive fail of every absurd point in one's own arguement.
> 
> Regardless, continue to cut-and-paste more Anti-Globalist nonsense, and ridiculously illogical babblings.
> 
> The stupidity still amuses me.



The irony here is priceless. You don't even UNDERSTAND one data point, let alone all of them. And "extrapolation?" Are you f'ing serious? You wrote the book on extrapolation throughout this sub-forum. It's what you utterly rely on, certainly in THIS argument that desperately tries to convey "there's centuries of oil!" 

Sam, you've made yourself irrelevant to this discussion many, many pages ago.  If you can't stop running at the fingers from the sidelines, at least answer the one question that trumps all: "Where is the oil, and in what amount?" Then we can apply obvious consumption rates, and come to a basic agreement. Shall we?

If not, stay on the sidelines.


----------



## Old Rocks

Big Fitz said:


> Models also predicted a global temperature rise of 10 degrees by now.  Models predicted mass starvations and death too.
> 
> Models are only as good as the garbage you put into them.
> 
> Aren't you getting tired running around with that goalpost on your back?



Well, Fritz, you seem to be adapting Walleyes method of telling the big lie. 

Nobody reputable ever predicted a ten degree rise by now.


----------



## Big Fitz

JiggsCasey said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Models also predicted a global temperature rise of 10 degrees by now.  Models predicted mass starvations and death too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By who? Who said that? Were they models by our department of defense? Our own Dept. of Energy? By the International Energy Agency? You're comparing apples to oranges, and extrapolating a deeply flawed conclusion. It's what people like you do, liar.
> 
> Run along now. Adults are talking.
Click to expand...

That's right.  History started in 1999, didn't it?  

Do your own pre 1980 research, I've got other things to do that bring you up to remedial history levels.


----------



## Eightball

All I know is this:  We have one friggin pile of fuel sitting here on our continent in the form of oil locked in a shale matrix, and it is extractable at $80.00-90.00/barrel!!!

We have more energy locked up in oil shale than all of Saudi Arabia and the other oil mongols of the Middle East combined.

Canada has a friggin pile of oil locked in oil sands too.  It's' time we really get serious about exploiting this.  

The more we become independent of OPEC cutting off our "nards" when they don't like what we do geo-politically, then we are in the driver's seat.  

Just remember the good old 70's OPEC oil embargo......It wasn't a pretty.


----------



## Big Fitz

Eightball said:


> All I know is this:  We have one friggin pile of fuel sitting here on our continent in the form of oil locked in a shale matrix, and it is extractable at $80.00-90.00/barrel!!!
> 
> We have more energy locked up in oil shale than all of Saudi Arabia and the other oil mongols of the Middle East combined.
> 
> Canada has a friggin pile of oil locked in oil sands too.  It's' time we really get serious about exploiting this.
> 
> The more we become independent of OPEC cutting off our "nards" when they don't like what we do geo-politically, then we are in the driver's seat.
> 
> Just remember the good old 70's OPEC oil embargo......It wasn't a pretty.


but but but... 

Peak OIL!!!!!  We must preserve it's truthiness!!!! For the love of God won't somebody think of all the poor environmentalnazis who will be exposed as frauds???  We must protect them at all costs!  They must not be exposed!


----------



## KissMy

Awe, The Peak Oil doomers are busted again by the August numbers. The chart below shows production capacity is outpacing actual production. We also have a glut of oil in storage. The price of oil is dropping even as the US Dollar weakens. THERE IS NO PEAK OIL.

Total World oil production capacity in July 2010 increased by 820,000 b/d from June 2010 from 90.16 to 90.98 million b/d. World production capacity is measured here as the sum of world liquids production excluding biofuels plus total OPEC spare capacity excluding Iraq, Venezuela and Nigeria.


----------



## KissMy

Oil Trades Near 1-Month Low After U.S. Supplies Rise to Highest in Decades



> The U.S. Energy Department report yesterday showed that total petroleum stockpiles surged to the highest level in at least 20 years.


----------



## JiggsCasey

KissMy said:


> Awe, The Peak Oil doomers are busted again by the August numbers. The chart below shows production capacity is outpacing actual production. We also have a glut of oil in storage. The price of oil is dropping even as the US Dollar weakens. THERE IS NO PEAK OIL.
> 
> Total World oil production capacity in July 2010 increased by 820,000 b/d from June 2010 from 90.16 to 90.98 million b/d. World production capacity is measured here as the sum of world liquids production excluding biofuels plus total OPEC spare capacity excluding Iraq, Venezuela and Nigeria.



With the big type, are you trying to compensate for your tiny argument? How bout providing an actual link, so that your latest round of drivel can be held accountable? Is that possible for you, or do you routinely pass off statistics and hope no one calls you on it around here.

In the meantime, "production capacity" right now doesn't mean squat for the course of the next 10 years. Do you even know what "production capacity" means? Probably not. .... It's more a reference to existing infrastructure and known reserve capacity. Not future reserves. Where are the discoveries of new oil in any significance? Still waiting for you to provide that data. You won't, because you can't.

Meanwhile, here's the assessment of longterm production capacity by the Joint Chiefs: 

&#8220;By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 million barrels per day,&#8221; says the report, which has a foreword by a senior commander, General James N Mattis.​
And here's how you link, to actually back up your assertions so they don't seem completely baseless:

US military warns oil output may dip causing massive shortages by 2015 | Business | The Guardian

As for the latest shale fan, who probably didn't actually read the thread, if you believe strip mining our own Rocky Mountains for a disgusting energy source that yields a 2:1 EROEI and honestly believe that will save us and get us off Middle Eastern imports, you really have no idea what you're talking about. 

Do better.


----------



## KissMy

JiggsCasey said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awe, The Peak Oil doomers are busted again by the August numbers. The chart below shows production capacity is outpacing actual production. We also have a glut of oil in storage. The price of oil is dropping even as the US Dollar weakens. THERE IS NO PEAK OIL.
> 
> Total World oil production capacity in July 2010 increased by 820,000 b/d from June 2010 from 90.16 to 90.98 million b/d. World production capacity is measured here as the sum of world liquids production excluding biofuels plus total OPEC spare capacity excluding Iraq, Venezuela and Nigeria.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With the big type, are you trying to compensate for your tiny argument? How bout providing an actual link, so that your latest round of drivel can be held accountable? Is that possible for you, or do you routinely pass off statistics and hope no one calls you on it around here.
> 
> In the meantime, "production capacity" right now doesn't mean squat for the course of the next 10 years. Do you even know what "production capacity" means? Probably not. .... It's more a reference to existing infrastructure and known reserve capacity. Not future reserves. Where are the discoveries of new oil in any significance? Still waiting for you to provide that data. You won't, because you can't.
> 
> Meanwhile, here's the assessment of longterm production capacity by the Joint Chiefs:
> 
> &#8220;By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 million barrels per day,&#8221; says the report, which has a foreword by a senior commander, General James N Mattis.​
> And here's how you link, to actually back up your assertions so they don't seem completely baseless:
> 
> US military warns oil output may dip causing massive shortages by 2015 | Business | The Guardian
> 
> As for the latest shale fan, who probably didn't actually read the thread, if you believe strip mining our own Rocky Mountains for a disgusting energy source that yields a 2:1 EROEI and honestly believe that will save us and get us off Middle Eastern imports, you really have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Do better.
Click to expand...


The Chart says the source right on the bottom. Source: Energy Information Administration

The Chart & Info posted above are from this Oilwatch Monthly - August 2010.pdf file on page 2 right hand side.


----------



## JiggsCasey

KissMy said:


> The Chart says the source right on the bottom. Source: Energy Information Administration
> 
> The Chart & Info posted above are from this Oilwatch Monthly - August 2010.pdf file on page 2 right hand side.



Just as I thought. Now look at Chart 2 to the left, and notice what accounts for that total increase: *Liquid fuels!!!!*

_In July 2010 world production of all *liquid fuels increased by 860,000 b/d from June* according to the latest fgures of the International Energy Agency (IEA). Resulting in total world liquid fuels production of 87.22 million b/d. 



			Definitions

Crude Oil, petroleum found in liquid and semi
liquid form including deepsea oil and
lease condensates.

Liquids, all forms of liquid fuels including
*conventional, heavy, and extra heavy oil,
oil shale, oil sands,* natural gas liquids, lease
condensates, gas-to-liquids, *coal-to-liquids,*
and biofuels.
		
Click to expand...

_
In other words, light crude production continues to flatline or drop, while the difference (in order to meet ever-growing demand) is made up by ever dirtier, far-less efficient HEAVIER oil, like sands and shale. What's funny is that you think you've found something and are patting yourself on the back again, when in fact what you've provided actually SUPPORTS my thesis even further.

You're horrible at this.


----------



## elam

Eightball said:


> Ok........Drudge this morning said, "$87.00/barrel"
> 
> I still recall reading that the rough and dirty extraction price with oil shale was between $80-$90.00/barrel.
> 
> Now we have here in the USA an estimated 2.5 trillion barrels of oil locked up in oil shale.  So we open-up a few "token" off-shore areas by the President, and everyone is suppose to be wetting their collective pants that we are on the way to energy independence from OPEC.    Oh........give me a break!  Are the "sheep" really buying into this?
> 
> This 2.5 trillion barrels far-exceeds the total oil reserves of the Middle East, if not Saudi Arabia alone.
> 
> Now if we have extraction prices from shale at the above prices, you and I know that technology/research will not stop there, but there should be coming down the pipe, even cheaper methods of extraction.
> 
> Why, oh why, isn't this administration "green lighting" this area of energy potential with gusto.
> 
> Ethanol is a joke!  If we were to do as Brazil and start agri-farming, grow-able land to produce Ethanol, we would have to use every inch/acre of present land that is producing edible crops for our nation.  We don't have sugar cane climate here in the U.S..  Brazil is close to the equator, and is very humid/tropical, which is ideal for high-yield ethanol crops.
> 
> Sure, theres nothing wrong with bio-fuels......but they can't make but a golf ball sized dent in our energy consumption/needs.  There's only so much fast food/restaurant oil to be had, and the way the government is going after fatting foods to save our collective lives the amount of useable cooking oils will not expand with this economy IMO.
> *****
> Why Not Nuke Plants?:  They're one heck of a lot cleaner than the cleanest coal burning plants.  Interestingly, I listened to a notable scientist, Dr. Bill Wattenberg, who has worked and Livermore Labs in weapons research, and also has been an independent inventer, and has been contracted by both state and Federal Gov, agencies to help "invent" ASAP methods/devices during emergency situations such as, temporary bridge replacements, mine sweeping equipment......etc, etc...
> 
> Wattenberg had emphatically said, over the years, that the amount of radioactive isotopes emitted into the atmosphere by even clean coal burning power plants is so immense, and health/dangerous.
> 
> Wattenberg has been an nuke power plant advocate for years, and has tried and tried to fight the panic, and b.s. poured out by the "left"  and "green" wingnuts about the horrors of nuclear power.
> 
> France:  They are on their merry way to independence from OPEC.  Roughly 70% of Frances' electric power comes from nuke power plants.  France actually produces an excess of electicity, and is able to sell it off to other countrys' grids.  I also understand that France is stockpiling hydrogen, as their excess electricity allows them to "crack" H2O, into hyrogen gas.
> ******
> Us or the U.S..   Our President, gave in to Harry Reid, and closed Yucca Mountain.  This was a major multi$$$$$$ project that was designed to store our nations' spent nuclear fuels with a margin of safety that far exceeded the risks.   Yucca Mountain was geologically studied for dangerous seismic faults that could rupture storage and cause dangerous ground water leakage of nuclear or hot wastes.
> 
> Containerization of spent fuels is so-beyond adequate, as the containers will far exceed the spent half-lives of these materials.  Never the less, the wingnut, greenie crowd still holds sway over a certain major political party in our country, and I mean major lobbying pressure probably second to none.  As a result, U.S. energy independence is held hostage to archaic, 19th century mentality/dreams........that "utopia" for all Americans is the destruction of industrialization, and the adoption of an agrarian mentality, and culture.
> 
> I'm an idealist........but I"m also a realist.  We have a party/administration in power that has a skewed, and illogical mentality and outlook on the future of this country.  Nothing they propose encourages entrepreneurialism, but in fact hinders or destroys it.
> 
> Entrepreneurialism is the unspoken swear word of this administration..........................Unless it fits into their illogical paradigm of American life according to their bible.
> 
> I live in Silicon Valley, the birth place of R&D on the nano-scale like no other place in our country.  What is it now?  It is empty parking lots..........building for lease banners everywhere.
> 
> Tech support goes to India now.   For years here in Silicon Valley we had an incredible influx of Indian Nationals who were highly educated computer engineers for the most-part.  Many gained legal citizenship, and have continued to contribute to our economy with hard working ethics...........But............now even our R&D is being jobbed-out to faraway India and other parts of the world.  Manufacturing of hardware has gone to the far reaches of the world.  That's ok...........but...........R&D???  That's the bread and butter of "entrepreneurialism"!
> 
> We were a country of innovation!   So what's our claim to fame now?  Oh we make "negative sum gain" windmills, and residential solar panels.    Big whoopee!  We are the home of Tesla motors that only the "Sean Penns" of the world can afford.
> 
> Oh..............I could go on and on and on.............
> ********


Why does the administration have to green light it?  What are the ecological issues?


----------



## Big Fitz

> ight crude production continues to flatline or drop



And oil comes from nothign else.... Well.. not TRUE oil.  That other stuff isn't really true.

The "No True Scotsman" argument comes to Peak Oil.


----------



## Samson

Big Fitz said:


> ight crude production continues to flatline or drop
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And oil comes from nothign else.... Well.. not TRUE oil.  That other stuff isn't really true.
> 
> The "No True Scotsman" argument comes to Peak Oil.
Click to expand...


True oil only comes from Quart Sized Cans.


----------



## Eightball

elam said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok........Drudge this morning said, "$87.00/barrel"
> 
> I still recall reading that the rough and dirty extraction price with oil shale was between $80-$90.00/barrel.
> 
> Now we have here in the USA an estimated 2.5 trillion barrels of oil locked up in oil shale.  So we open-up a few "token" off-shore areas by the President, and everyone is suppose to be wetting their collective pants that we are on the way to energy independence from OPEC.    Oh........give me a break!  Are the "sheep" really buying into this?
> 
> This 2.5 trillion barrels far-exceeds the total oil reserves of the Middle East, if not Saudi Arabia alone.
> 
> Now if we have extraction prices from shale at the above prices, you and I know that technology/research will not stop there, but there should be coming down the pipe, even cheaper methods of extraction.
> 
> Why, oh why, isn't this administration "green lighting" this area of energy potential with gusto.
> 
> Ethanol is a joke!  If we were to do as Brazil and start agri-farming, grow-able land to produce Ethanol, we would have to use every inch/acre of present land that is producing edible crops for our nation.  We don't have sugar cane climate here in the U.S..  Brazil is close to the equator, and is very humid/tropical, which is ideal for high-yield ethanol crops.
> 
> Sure, theres nothing wrong with bio-fuels......but they can't make but a golf ball sized dent in our energy consumption/needs.  There's only so much fast food/restaurant oil to be had, and the way the government is going after fatting foods to save our collective lives the amount of useable cooking oils will not expand with this economy IMO.
> *****
> Why Not Nuke Plants?:  They're one heck of a lot cleaner than the cleanest coal burning plants.  Interestingly, I listened to a notable scientist, Dr. Bill Wattenberg, who has worked and Livermore Labs in weapons research, and also has been an independent inventer, and has been contracted by both state and Federal Gov, agencies to help "invent" ASAP methods/devices during emergency situations such as, temporary bridge replacements, mine sweeping equipment......etc, etc...
> 
> Wattenberg had emphatically said, over the years, that the amount of radioactive isotopes emitted into the atmosphere by even clean coal burning power plants is so immense, and health/dangerous.
> 
> Wattenberg has been an nuke power plant advocate for years, and has tried and tried to fight the panic, and b.s. poured out by the "left"  and "green" wingnuts about the horrors of nuclear power.
> 
> France:  They are on their merry way to independence from OPEC.  Roughly 70% of Frances' electric power comes from nuke power plants.  France actually produces an excess of electicity, and is able to sell it off to other countrys' grids.  I also understand that France is stockpiling hydrogen, as their excess electricity allows them to "crack" H2O, into hyrogen gas.
> ******
> Us or the U.S..   Our President, gave in to Harry Reid, and closed Yucca Mountain.  This was a major multi$$$$$$ project that was designed to store our nations' spent nuclear fuels with a margin of safety that far exceeded the risks.   Yucca Mountain was geologically studied for dangerous seismic faults that could rupture storage and cause dangerous ground water leakage of nuclear or hot wastes.
> 
> Containerization of spent fuels is so-beyond adequate, as the containers will far exceed the spent half-lives of these materials.  Never the less, the wingnut, greenie crowd still holds sway over a certain major political party in our country, and I mean major lobbying pressure probably second to none.  As a result, U.S. energy independence is held hostage to archaic, 19th century mentality/dreams........that "utopia" for all Americans is the destruction of industrialization, and the adoption of an agrarian mentality, and culture.
> 
> I'm an idealist........but I"m also a realist.  We have a party/administration in power that has a skewed, and illogical mentality and outlook on the future of this country.  Nothing they propose encourages entrepreneurialism, but in fact hinders or destroys it.
> 
> Entrepreneurialism is the unspoken swear word of this administration..........................Unless it fits into their illogical paradigm of American life according to their bible.
> 
> I live in Silicon Valley, the birth place of R&D on the nano-scale like no other place in our country.  What is it now?  It is empty parking lots..........building for lease banners everywhere.
> 
> Tech support goes to India now.   For years here in Silicon Valley we had an incredible influx of Indian Nationals who were highly educated computer engineers for the most-part.  Many gained legal citizenship, and have continued to contribute to our economy with hard working ethics...........But............now even our R&D is being jobbed-out to faraway India and other parts of the world.  Manufacturing of hardware has gone to the far reaches of the world.  That's ok...........but...........R&D???  That's the bread and butter of "entrepreneurialism"!
> 
> We were a country of innovation!   So what's our claim to fame now?  Oh we make "negative sum gain" windmills, and residential solar panels.    Big whoopee!  We are the home of Tesla motors that only the "Sean Penns" of the world can afford.
> 
> Oh..............I could go on and on and on.............
> ********
> 
> 
> 
> Why does the administration have to green light it?  What are the ecological issues?
Click to expand...


Good question!  Why does the Fed have to stick their grimy big nose in this?  Answer:  Power, control, manipulation,..........


----------



## Steerpike

Eightball said:


> All I know is this:  We have one friggin pile of fuel sitting here on our continent in the form of oil locked in a shale matrix, and it is extractable at $80.00-90.00/barrel!!!
> 
> We have more energy locked up in oil shale than all of Saudi Arabia and the other oil mongols of the Middle East combined.
> 
> Canada has a friggin pile of oil locked in oil sands too.  It's' time we really get serious about exploiting this.
> 
> The more we become independent of OPEC cutting off our "nards" when they don't like what we do geo-politically, then we are in the driver's seat.
> 
> Just remember the good old 70's OPEC oil embargo......It wasn't a pretty.



One problem I see here - doesn't it take a hell of a lot of water to get that oil out?  My question about this is how feasible is it to get all that oil. If it makes sense and can be done reasonably, then there's no reason not to do it.


----------



## Eightball

Steerpike said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I know is this:  We have one friggin pile of fuel sitting here on our continent in the form of oil locked in a shale matrix, and it is extractable at $80.00-90.00/barrel!!!
> 
> We have more energy locked up in oil shale than all of Saudi Arabia and the other oil mongols of the Middle East combined.
> 
> Canada has a friggin pile of oil locked in oil sands too.  It's' time we really get serious about exploiting this.
> 
> The more we become independent of OPEC cutting off our "nards" when they don't like what we do geo-politically, then we are in the driver's seat.
> 
> Just remember the good old 70's OPEC oil embargo......It wasn't a pretty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One problem I see here - doesn't it take a hell of a lot of water to get that oil out?  My question about this is how feasible is it to get all that oil. If it makes sense and can be done reasonably, then there's no reason not to do it.
Click to expand...


You make too much sense!   And you know how that "miffs" politicians. 

 Even if current underground crude drops into the $70.00's range, it's a no-brainer that crude extraction from a rock/shale matix is only going to get cheaper as technology, and volume of production increase.  

So if we have $80.-90./barrel for current Shale Oil extraction pricing, then we are looking at some good numbers to start with.  

Also with this 2.5 trillion barrel potential, we would have a way of stabilizing the price of U.S. fuel to private and commercial consumers.  A OPEC boycott or even Israel bombing the "bejeezers" out of Iran, wouldn't interupt our energy source.

Result:  Geo-Politics conducted by the U.S. would be less vunerable to economic blackmail by OPEC or other countries that have alignment with OPEC producers.
*******


----------



## KissMy

Bloomberg: Hedge Funds Cut Gasoline Bets Most Since 2006


> Stockpiles of distillate fuel, which include diesel and heating oil, jumped to their highest levels since 1983, climbing 1.07 million barrels to 174.2 million.
> 
> Inventories of crude and fuel products rose to 1.13 billion barrels last week, the highest level since the Energy Department began keeping combined weekly data in January 1990, according to an Aug. 18 report.


----------



## Eightball

KissMy said:


> Bloomberg: Hedge Funds Cut Gasoline Bets Most Since 2006
> 
> 
> 
> Stockpiles of distillate fuel, which include diesel and heating oil, jumped to their highest levels since 1983, climbing 1.07 million barrels to 174.2 million.
> 
> Inventories of crude and fuel products rose to 1.13 billion barrels last week, the highest level since the Energy Department began keeping combined weekly data in January 1990, according to an Aug. 18 report.
Click to expand...


Energy department just announced that they expect about a 15 cent drop/gallon. 

I think that supports the posters who said that we have generous stockpiles of fuel right now..........I.E.  We are not using fuel at a break neck pace at all.

Surplus fuel, or Crude will drive down the market price.......
********
Never the less, we must gain more independence from OPEC and it's cohorts and get this domestic shale oil production in high gear.

Also, we must not just talk "nuke plants" but make a real effort to get some nuke plants online.  Sadly they take years from initial planning to actual working plants.  We can thank our greenie friends here in the U.S. for creating outrageous scare stories/tactics with the U.S. public about the horrific dangers of Nuclear power.

Funny, how the one nation that had A-bombs used on it, has embraced nuke power plants with much gusto.  

France is smarting-up faster than us and has about 70% of their electric grid from nuke power.  France is determined to get off the OPEC teat.


----------



## KissMy

Black stuff in a green land


> After decades of searching, evidence of oil is found off the coast of Greenland... The United States Geological Survey suggest the seabed between Greenland and Canada holds a total of 17 billion barrels.


----------



## Eightball

KissMy said:


> Black stuff in a green land
> 
> 
> 
> After decades of searching, evidence of oil is found off the coast of Greenland... The United States Geological Survey suggest the seabed between Greenland and Canada holds a total of 17 billion barrels.
Click to expand...


Now let's see what the current administration can do to keep American Companies from obtaining workable tracts of undersea land to drill for oil out there?  

You do know that they are doing their darndest to drive us back to the stone age if possible.......That's not tongue and cheek either.......That is straight out of the Greenies' playbooks.  

When your a one termer, it's "No holds bar'd"........Go for broke......push the old progressive agenda and then retire in 2012 sucking in $100k/per speech fees,  with perpetual secret service protection, and a great pension to boot.


----------



## KissMy

Eightball said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Black stuff in a green land
> 
> 
> 
> After decades of searching, evidence of oil is found off the coast of Greenland... The United States Geological Survey suggest the seabed between Greenland and Canada holds a total of 17 billion barrels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now let's see what the current administration can do to keep American Companies from obtaining workable tracts of undersea land to drill for oil out there?
> 
> You do know that they are doing their darndest to drive us back to the stone age if possible.......That's not tongue and cheek either.......That is straight out of the Greenies' playbooks.
> 
> When your a one termer, it's "No holds bar'd"........Go for broke......push the old progressive agenda and then retire in 2012 sucking in $100k/per speech fees,  with perpetual secret service protection, and a great pension to boot.
Click to expand...


Greenpeace claims to have shut down Greenland oil well


> The envvironmental group said four expert climbers in inflatable speedboats had evaded the Danish navy to climb up the inside of the Cairn Energy oil rig off Greenland.
> 
> The four campaigners are now hanging from the rig 15m above the icy Arctic ocean in tents suspended from ropes, halting its drilling operation, Greenpeace said.


----------



## Eightball

KissMy said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Black stuff in a green land
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now let's see what the current administration can do to keep American Companies from obtaining workable tracts of undersea land to drill for oil out there?
> 
> You do know that they are doing their darndest to drive us back to the stone age if possible.......That's not tongue and cheek either.......That is straight out of the Greenies' playbooks.
> 
> When your a one termer, it's "No holds bar'd"........Go for broke......push the old progressive agenda and then retire in 2012 sucking in $100k/per speech fees,  with perpetual secret service protection, and a great pension to boot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Greenpeace claims to have shut down Greenland oil well
> 
> 
> 
> The envvironmental group said four expert climbers in inflatable speedboats had evaded the Danish navy to climb up the inside of the Cairn Energy oil rig off Greenland.
> 
> The four campaigners are now hanging from the rig 15m above the icy Arctic ocean in tents suspended from ropes, halting its drilling operation, Greenpeace said.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


As Yoda would say......."Idiots they are."...


----------



## JiggsCasey

Eightball said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Black stuff in a green land
> 
> 
> 
> After decades of searching, evidence of oil is found off the coast of Greenland... The United States Geological Survey suggest the seabed between Greenland and Canada holds a total of 17 billion barrels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now let's see what the current administration can do to keep American Companies from obtaining workable tracts of undersea land to drill for oil out there?
> 
> You do know that they are doing their darndest to drive us back to the stone age if possible.......That's not tongue and cheek either.......That is straight out of the Greenies' playbooks.
> 
> When your a one termer, it's "No holds bar'd"........Go for broke......push the old progressive agenda and then retire in 2012 sucking in $100k/per speech fees,  with perpetual secret service protection, and a great pension to boot.
Click to expand...


LOL.... You guys act like such reactionary tools, desperate for someone to blame in the face of a geological certainty. So pathetic, that a thread like this gets extrapolated into a completely irrelevant bash Obama rant. Such angry little cons.

No one is trying to "drive us back to the Stone Age," losers. Grow up. We all enjoy modern technology and medical advances, just as much as you gluttonous con men do.

Yet again, "Kissmyass" (fitting handle) keeps his argument mobile by fleeing from his previously debunked premise and providing a new kiddie pool "find" of estimated reserves, hoping it passes as "proof" that global oil depletion is a myth. His link has a lot of "could contain..." and "estimated totals of...", but no mention of proven reserves, which is all that really matters when it comes to investment. But, for the sake of argument, let's pretend that there really is 17 billion barrels under there, maybe half of which is recoverable. Heck, let's add up ALL the kiddie pools of conventional crude Kiss has smarmily referenced. ... It's still a drop in the bucket compared to what industrial nations require going forward. New discoveries are NOT keeping up with increasing demand, and are NOT offsetting current dying capacity. Period, end of story.  I'm sorry. I know that's hard for some of you people who insist that if we keep throwing money at the problem, God will somehow put more oil in the ground. ... But, nope, doesn't work that way.

We need to find 4-5 Saudi Arabia's immediately just to maintain stasis for the next 10-20 years. Where are they? ... Gosh, some deep water find up near Greenland that MAY contain 17 billion barrels? Big f'ing deal. 

Again I ask... WHERE is the oil, going forward? In what proven amount? How far down? At what cost to get to it? Who is promoting the find?

I can allude to 1 trillion barrels under my back yard... But if I can't prove how much is there, and the location I propose is 30 miles down, under thick bedrock and salt formations, it doesn't really matter very much, now does it? No company is going to invest.


----------



## Samson

JiggsCasey said:


> We need to find 4-5 Saudi Arabia's immediately just to maintain stasis for the next 10-20 years. Where are they? ... .



Linear thinking.


----------



## JiggsCasey

Samson said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to find 4-5 Saudi Arabia's immediately just to maintain stasis for the next 10-20 years. Where are they? ... .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Linear thinking.
Click to expand...


Wrong... that's the reality of it...   Regardless, at least it's thinking. .... Your camp bases its entire "no problem" thesis on "hope."... Certainly not data.


----------



## Samson

JiggsCasey said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to find 4-5 Saudi Arabia's immediately just to maintain stasis for the next 10-20 years. Where are they? ... .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Linear thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regardless, at least it's thinking. .....
Click to expand...


Not really, unless predicting that a non-renewable resource has a limited volume is called "thinking."

But I will give you some credit, ok?:

At least it's babbling.


----------



## JiggsCasey

Samson said:


> Not really, unless predicting that a non-renewable resource has a limited volume is called "thinking."
> 
> But I will give you some credit, ok?:
> 
> At least it's babbling.



And yet, when challenged to explain how it's all somehow wrong or shortsighted, you bailed from your one weak appearance on the matter.

What I've provided is far, far more than merely stating (not predicting) it is limited. Please represent my position accurately, or not at all, liar. 

Stick to the sidelines. This subject has proven far beyond your pay grade.

The fact is, production has reached a plateau, and only the recession has kept demand in check. If you're ok with perpetual recession, that's fine... But this recession is a ramification of peak oil, not a counter-argument to it.

Meanwhile, here's that chart again that your camp still can't refute:


----------



## Big Fitz

mmmm smooth straightline projection....   gahhhhhhhhhgggggg.....


----------



## KissMy

Eightball said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Black stuff in a green land
> 
> 
> 
> After decades of searching, evidence of oil is found off the coast of Greenland... The United States Geological Survey suggest the seabed between Greenland and Canada holds a total of 17 billion barrels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now let's see what the current administration can do to keep American Companies from obtaining workable tracts of undersea land to drill for oil out there?
> 
> You do know that they are doing their darndest to drive us back to the stone age if possible.......That's not tongue and cheek either.......That is straight out of the Greenies' playbooks.
> 
> When your a one termer, it's "No holds bar'd"........Go for broke......push the old progressive agenda and then retire in 2012 sucking in $100k/per speech fees,  with perpetual secret service protection, and a great pension to boot.
Click to expand...

Activists taken from arctic oil rig


> Activists who scaled a drilling platform off the coast of Greenland were arrested after severe weather forced them off the rig, police said.


----------



## Eightball

> Activists who scaled a drilling platform off the coast of Greenland were arrested after severe weather forced them off the rig, police said.


----------



## Big Fitz

Can hear those activists whining already:

Whyyyy woooooon't realllityyyyyyy obeeeyyyyyyyyy?????


----------



## Samson

JiggsCasey said:


> Meanwhile, here's that chart again that your camp still can't refute:



Its interesting that every thirty years, you graph shows a decrease in production.

I imagine in 2040, some moron like yourself will predict that "AT ANY MINUTE" fossil fuels will disappear from the planet!!!!

Then the sky will fall, chicken little.


----------



## Big Fitz

Notice something else in that graph?  Something that may just be corollary, but still interesting.

The most intense time of oil exploration, production was between about 1958 and 1972.  Then it took a sharp dip for a year or so, then only gradually rose after that.

What else ALSO happened in 1972/3?  The EPA.

Then the most severe dip was between the years of 1978 to 1983.  What was going on then?  The oil embargos.

Huh... corollary or causation?  I wonder.  You can even see the leveling off in production during the gulf war AND 9/11.

I wonder.  Oil production... politically influence primarily?  NAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH.... Jiggles has GOT to be right.  He's so convincing that it's science.


----------



## Flopper

Eightball said:


> Ok........Drudge this morning said, "$87.00/barrel"
> 
> I still recall reading that the rough and dirty extraction price with oil shale was between $80-$90.00/barrel.
> 
> Now we have here in the USA an estimated 2.5 trillion barrels of oil locked up in oil shale.  So we open-up a few "token" off-shore areas by the President, and everyone is suppose to be wetting their collective pants that we are on the way to energy independence from OPEC.    Oh........give me a break!  Are the "sheep" really buying into this?
> 
> This 2.5 trillion barrels far-exceeds the total oil reserves of the Middle East, if not Saudi Arabia alone.
> 
> Now if we have extraction prices from shale at the above prices, you and I know that technology/research will not stop there, but there should be coming down the pipe, even cheaper methods of extraction.
> 
> Why, oh why, isn't this administration "green lighting" this area of energy potential with gusto.
> 
> Ethanol is a joke!  If we were to do as Brazil and start agri-farming, grow-able land to produce Ethanol, we would have to use every inch/acre of present land that is producing edible crops for our nation.  We don't have sugar cane climate here in the U.S..  Brazil is close to the equator, and is very humid/tropical, which is ideal for high-yield ethanol crops.
> 
> Sure, theres nothing wrong with bio-fuels......but they can't make but a golf ball sized dent in our energy consumption/needs.  There's only so much fast food/restaurant oil to be had, and the way the government is going after fatting foods to save our collective lives the amount of useable cooking oils will not expand with this economy IMO.
> *****
> Why Not Nuke Plants?:  They're one heck of a lot cleaner than the cleanest coal burning plants.  Interestingly, I listened to a notable scientist, Dr. Bill Wattenberg, who has worked and Livermore Labs in weapons research, and also has been an independent inventer, and has been contracted by both state and Federal Gov, agencies to help "invent" ASAP methods/devices during emergency situations such as, temporary bridge replacements, mine sweeping equipment......etc, etc...
> 
> Wattenberg had emphatically said, over the years, that the amount of radioactive isotopes emitted into the atmosphere by even clean coal burning power plants is so immense, and health/dangerous.
> 
> Wattenberg has been an nuke power plant advocate for years, and has tried and tried to fight the panic, and b.s. poured out by the "left"  and "green" wingnuts about the horrors of nuclear power.
> 
> France:  They are on their merry way to independence from OPEC.  Roughly 70% of Frances' electric power comes from nuke power plants.  France actually produces an excess of electicity, and is able to sell it off to other countrys' grids.  I also understand that France is stockpiling hydrogen, as their excess electricity allows them to "crack" H2O, into hyrogen gas.
> ******
> Us or the U.S..   Our President, gave in to Harry Reid, and closed Yucca Mountain.  This was a major multi$$$$$$ project that was designed to store our nations' spent nuclear fuels with a margin of safety that far exceeded the risks.   Yucca Mountain was geologically studied for dangerous seismic faults that could rupture storage and cause dangerous ground water leakage of nuclear or hot wastes.
> 
> Containerization of spent fuels is so-beyond adequate, as the containers will far exceed the spent half-lives of these materials.  Never the less, the wingnut, greenie crowd still holds sway over a certain major political party in our country, and I mean major lobbying pressure probably second to none.  As a result, U.S. energy independence is held hostage to archaic, 19th century mentality/dreams........that "utopia" for all Americans is the destruction of industrialization, and the adoption of an agrarian mentality, and culture.
> 
> I'm an idealist........but I"m also a realist.  We have a party/administration in power that has a skewed, and illogical mentality and outlook on the future of this country.  Nothing they propose encourages entrepreneurialism, but in fact hinders or destroys it.
> 
> Entrepreneurialism is the unspoken swear word of this administration..........................Unless it fits into their illogical paradigm of American life according to their bible.
> 
> I live in Silicon Valley, the birth place of R&D on the nano-scale like no other place in our country.  What is it now?  It is empty parking lots..........building for lease banners everywhere.
> 
> Tech support goes to India now.   For years here in Silicon Valley we had an incredible influx of Indian Nationals who were highly educated computer engineers for the most-part.  Many gained legal citizenship, and have continued to contribute to our economy with hard working ethics...........But............now even our R&D is being jobbed-out to faraway India and other parts of the world.  Manufacturing of hardware has gone to the far reaches of the world.  That's ok...........but...........R&D???  That's the bread and butter of "entrepreneurialism"!
> 
> We were a country of innovation!   So what's our claim to fame now?  Oh we make "negative sum gain" windmills, and residential solar panels.    Big whoopee!  We are the home of Tesla motors that only the "Sean Penns" of the world can afford.
> 
> Oh..............I could go on and on and on.............
> ********


*I think there are two big reasons why oil form shale is not in major use.  First the price will have to remain at a high level in order to convince oil companies to make the large investments needed.  Secondly is a big environmental impact which will surely illicit both state and federal regulations which at this point are unknown. 

The massive materials mined and processed will leave a great amount of disposable wastes which must have large amount of heavy metals and toxins and soluble salts. A part of this may be disposed duly and at times this will not be in accordance with the environmental regulations. A part of it, again, will be overlooked. Ground water, rainfall and snow will take them to aquifers and surface streams. Thus, the soil where plants will grow and water which is a daily necessity for the animals and air surrounding the region will be polluted to a greater extent.

Shale oil: Pros and cons*


----------



## Samson

Big Fitz said:


> Notice something else in that graph?  Something that may just be corollary, but still interesting.
> 
> The most intense time of oil exploration, production was between about 1958 and 1972.  Then it took a sharp dip for a year or so, then only gradually rose after that.
> 
> What else ALSO happened in 1972/3?  The EPA.
> 
> Then the most severe dip was between the years of 1978 to 1983.  What was going on then?  The oil embargos.
> 
> Huh... corollary or causation?  I wonder.  You can even see the leveling off in production during the gulf war AND 9/11.
> 
> I wonder.  Oil production... politically influence primarily?  NAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH.... Jiggles has GOT to be right.  He's so convincing that it's science.



Jiggs has the advantage of clairvoyance: he can actually see the future, and on a yearly basis when the prediction falls fall short, he simply makes a new prediction....rinse, repeat, ad nauseum, since 1984....eventually he WILL BE Correct.

But he'll still be nothing more than any other raving moron with a "The End Is Near" placard:


----------



## KissMy

Like I said before, these peak oil doomers have been around in the US for almost 100 years preaching the sky is falling, we have come to the end. You would think they would get tired of jumping up & down looking like a raving moron shouting "The End Is Near" I bet their family members & friends think they are nuts & keep their distance or snicker behind their backs. This is likely why Al & Tipper Gore split up.

*In 1919 the director of the U.S. Bureau of Mines predicted that "within the next two to five years the oil fields of this country will reach their maximum production, and from that time on we will face an ever-increasing decline."

That same year, National Geographic magazine predicted that oil shales in Colorado and Utah would be exploited to produce oil, because the demand for oil could not be met by existing production.

In January 1920, Dr. George Otis Smith, Director of the United States Geological Survey, in commenting upon our oil supply stated: "The position of the United States in regard to oil can best be characterized as precarious."

In May 1920, Dr. Smith said: "Americans will have to depend on foreign sources or use less oil, or perhaps both.

In 1920, David White, of the United States Geological Survey, stated: "On the whole, therefore, we must expect that, unless our consumption is checked, we shall by 1925 be dependent on foreign oil fields to the extent of 150,000,000 barrels and possibly as much as 200,000,000 of crude each year, except insofar as the situation may at that time, perhaps, be helped to a slight extent by shale oil. Add to this probability that within 5 years--perhaps 3 years only--our domestic production will begin to fall off with increasing rapidity, due to the exhaustion of our reserves"*

This really freaks the lefties out! Either these Doomers have been lying, science has it wrong or God has been providing us all the oil we need for the past 100 years!!!


----------



## JiggsCasey

Big Fitz said:


> Notice something else in that graph?  Something that may just be corollary, but still interesting.
> 
> The most intense time of oil exploration, production was between about 1958 and 1972.  Then it took a sharp dip for a year or so, then only gradually rose after that.
> 
> What else ALSO happened in 1972/3?  The EPA.
> 
> Then the most severe dip was between the years of 1978 to 1983.  What was going on then?  The oil embargos.
> 
> Huh... corollary or causation?  I wonder.  You can even see the leveling off in production during the gulf war AND 9/11.
> 
> I wonder.  Oil production... politically influence primarily?  NAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH.... Jiggles has GOT to be right.  He's so convincing that it's science.



LOL...  Too funny. You guys can't even agree on how I must be wrong. You all have different theories about how it all will be "just fine" and there's "nothing to see here!"

I'll ask you, or any of your Frank Drebbin allies here, for like the 7th time... Take 14 minutes out of your all-knowing lives, and watch these two short videos... If global oil depletion is some myth, then how/why are these energy consultants, retired petrol geologists and Big Oil CEOs wrong? How are you smarter than they are? Or, are they somehow collectively lying? If so, for what purpose are they lying? Can't wait:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUVY2qrEfd8]YouTube - ASPO.TV News: Peak Oil Reality - Production & Depletion Issues[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd7QGbNKxoQ]YouTube - ASPO.TV News - Acknowledging the Reality of Peak Oil[/ame]


----------



## Samson

You are an idiot

Hey, here's another ex-BP engineer

[youtube]YClrTo0CKOM[/youtube]


----------



## JiggsCasey

Samson said:


> You are an idiot
> 
> Hey, here's another ex-BP engineer
> ((some irrelevant video))



Right, I'm the "idiot," but you punted to this empty response.

That's about what I thought you'd come back with... So much nothingness. It's because your argument sucks, and you really have no idea what you're talking about.

Run along now, little free market capitalist.


----------



## Big Fitz

> Take 14 minutes out of your all-knowing lives, and watch these two short videos...



I'm not spending 14 minutes watching a video that isn't worth the same time picking my nose.  How about you post the transcript instead of trying to waste my time?



> If global oil depletion is some myth



No no no.  You do NOT get to redefine the argument.  We are not ARGUING that we live on a FINITE world.  You do not get to make that lie.  

We ARE arguing that your timeline is obscenely compressed!  What you have happening in minutes and hours and days are going to take years and decades and centuries in reality.  We are saying that technology, and economics are going to be fundamental bulwarks of both retrieving, processing and using oil as well as motivating people to find alternatives.  

How can this be possible in the evil free markets!?  Oh noes!  It CAN'T be true that something simple such as PRICING SCARCITY acts as a negative feedback loop enticing people to produce new types of energy because it's PROFITABLE!  

You fucking Peaker retards always seem to think that people are not motivated by cash, or if they are, they're evil and they shouldn't be and must be stopped.  That somehow, because you hate money that makes it invalid as a motivator for the rest of the world, and incapable of doing ANYTHING good!

But here's a thought!  When oil gets rare... it will get expensive!  Is it getting expensive because of rarity right now?  NO!  New finds of millions billions and TRILLIONS of barrels are being found every year in new areas that are finally being explored thanks to technology.  But but but... it's getting expensive!  Yeah, it is.  Why?  POLITICS!  Oh my gawrsh!  Asshole environazis are blocking domestic production and now trying to stop foreign production.  This is not true scarcity, it is politically enabled scarcity.

That's why you can't buy a supporter here.  You're too easily debunked by elementary logic, economics and sociology.  I suggest you study these things and maybe... MAYBE you'll see why we've already killed, skinned, gutted, seasoned, baked and eaten Chicken Little.  




...And it was goooooooooooooooooood!



> How are you smarter than they are?



Blessed by God.



> Or, are they somehow collectively lying?



That's more likely.  I'd like to audit them and see where their money is coming from.

Your support of their lies I predict is just due to rampant stupidity.


----------



## Eightball

By the way, Royal Dutch Shell had on their web site some info. about their work in making oil shale/crude extraction feasible.  They have a patented process that they think is a winner.


----------



## Big Fitz

Eightball said:


> By the way, Royal Dutch Shell had on their web site some info. about their work in making oil shale/crude extraction feasible.  They have a patented process that they think is a winner.


and you don't do stuff like that without it being a sure thing.  It's a horrible waste of money otherwise and could end your company if you're wrong.


----------



## Samson

JiggsCasey said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are an idiot
> 
> Hey, here's another ex-BP engineer
> ((some irrelevant video))
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, I'm the "idiot," but you punted to this empty response.
> 
> That's about what I thought you'd come back with... So much nothingness. It's because your argument sucks, and you really have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Run along now, little free market capitalist.
Click to expand...


Here, I'll spell it out for you, since you clearly don't have more than a couple of brain cells to rub together:

Anyone can make a Youtube Video about Anything.

And you are an idiot for _BELIEVING_ that someone's youtube rant qualifies as evidence for your hair-brained theories.


----------



## Samson

Big Fitz said:


> Take 14 minutes out of your all-knowing lives, and watch these two short videos...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not spending 14 minutes watching a video that isn't worth the same time picking my nose.  How about you post the transcript instead of trying to waste my time?.
Click to expand...


My video is only 10 minutes long, and is just as credible a source.


----------



## Big Fitz

Samson said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take 14 minutes out of your all-knowing lives, and watch these two short videos...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not spending 14 minutes watching a video that isn't worth the same time picking my nose.  How about you post the transcript instead of trying to waste my time?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My video is only 10 minutes long, and is just as credible a source.
Click to expand...

Okay... your video... I'll ignore too.    I can't get that time back you know and it cuts seriously into my woolgathering and naval gazing time I have allotted myself every day while I wait for something better to happen.


----------



## Samson

Big Fitz said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not spending 14 minutes watching a video that isn't worth the same time picking my nose.  How about you post the transcript instead of trying to waste my time?.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My video is only 10 minutes long, and is just as credible a source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay... your video... I'll ignore too.    I can't get that time back you know and it cuts seriously into my woolgathering and naval gazing time I have allotted myself every day while I wait for something better to happen.
Click to expand...





You were probably one of those guys who slept through all the Mr. Science Films in 8th grade!!!!


----------



## Big Fitz

Mr. Who?


----------



## Samson

Big Fitz said:


> Mr. Who?



_*I knew IT!!!*_

You think those goddamn ancient projectors were _EASY_ to run.


----------



## Big Fitz

My state actually hired teachers to teach science, not just babysitters who ran projectors of teachers teaching science.  I wish they had used more movies.  LOL


----------



## Samson

Big Fitz said:


> My state actually hired teachers to teach science, not just babysitters who ran projectors of teachers teaching science.  I wish they had used more movies.  LOL



See, if you'd had teachers that showed more movies, then perhaps you'd understand the shrill whine of Peak Oilists that have been _Sounding the *ALARM*_ for the past 40 years.


----------



## JiggsCasey

Samson said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> My state actually hired teachers to teach science, not just babysitters who ran projectors of teachers teaching science.  I wish they had used more movies.  LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, if you'd had teachers that showed more movies, then perhaps you'd understand the shrill whine of Peak Oilists that have been _Sounding the *ALARM*_ for the past 40 years.
Click to expand...


Your perpetual arrogance belies you. You'll learn. But then, considering the state of the world, and your continued ignorance to the symptoms, maybe you won't.

They've been right for 40 years. 

Unfortuantely, to gluttonous cons like yourself who are sure God will solve everything via technology, if it doesn't occur overnight, it's apparently not happening at all.


----------



## JiggsCasey

Samson said:


> Here, I'll spell it out for you, since you clearly don't have more than a couple of brain cells to rub together:
> 
> Anyone can make a Youtube Video about Anything.
> 
> And you are an idiot for _BELIEVING_ that someone's youtube rant qualifies as evidence for your hair-brained theories.



What a convenient little world of self-rationalization you tools all live in whereby you can just trump any argument, and any credentials listed, by pretending that because it's on youtube, it's fraud.

Your argument, essentially, and the argument of that moron Fitz above, is that those men are all lying.


----------



## Samson

JiggsCasey said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> My state actually hired teachers to teach science, not just babysitters who ran projectors of teachers teaching science.  I wish they had used more movies.  LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, if you'd had teachers that showed more movies, then perhaps you'd understand the shrill whine of Peak Oilists that have been _Sounding the *ALARM*_ for the past 40 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They've been right for 40 years.
> 
> .
Click to expand...





Yes, every year, for the past 40 years, they've predicted peak oil in 15-20 years.

Genius.


----------



## Big Fitz

JiggsCasey said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> My state actually hired teachers to teach science, not just babysitters who ran projectors of teachers teaching science.  I wish they had used more movies.  LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, if you'd had teachers that showed more movies, then perhaps you'd understand the shrill whine of Peak Oilists that have been _Sounding the *ALARM*_ for the past 40 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your perpetual arrogance belies you. You'll learn. But then, considering the state of the world, and your continued ignorance to the symptoms, maybe you won't.
> 
> They've been right for 40 years.
> 
> Unfortuantely, to gluttonous cons like yourself who are sure God will solve everything via technology, if it doesn't occur overnight, it's apparently not happening at all.
Click to expand...

All hail King Chicken Little the Last! with his mighty decree!

"We're all going to die, soon!"


----------



## Big Fitz

JiggsCasey said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> My state actually hired teachers to teach science, not just babysitters who ran projectors of teachers teaching science.  I wish they had used more movies.  LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, if you'd had teachers that showed more movies, then perhaps you'd understand the shrill whine of Peak Oilists that have been _Sounding the *ALARM*_ for the past 40 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your perpetual arrogance belies you. You'll learn. But then, considering the state of the world, and your continued ignorance to the symptoms, maybe you won't.
> 
> They've been right for 40 years.
> 
> Unfortuantely, to gluttonous cons like yourself who are sure God will solve everything via technology, if it doesn't occur overnight, it's apparently not happening at all.
Click to expand...

All hail King Chicken Little the Last! with his mighty decree!

"We're all going to die, soon!"


----------



## Big Fitz

> Unfortuantely, to gluttonous cons like yourself who are sure God will solve everything via technology, if it doesn't occur overnight, it's apparently not happening at all.



Let's break down this panicked little screed for a second.

"Gluttonous Cons".  Okay Mr. Zero-Carbon ass-put.  Why should I allow someone else to control my consumption if I can afford it?  Why not let me say sorry, you are using too much energy, this winter your house may not be over 58 degrees?  yeah... life's a bitch ain't it.  Better start weaving those wool sweaters.  What?  You plan to buy them?  Ohhhh no no no... that's too much energy usage for you.  

Thank you for proving your rampant anti-capitalist, nihilism, yet again. King Chicken Little the Last.

"God will solve everything via technology"

Now what pray tell is that you're posting with?  I didn't realize you had an iGuttenberg press in your basement?  That phone of yours is just naturally grown?  Did you raise your car up from the go-cart it was as a kid?  Don't overfeed it or you'll have an SUV!  What the fuck is your problem with technology?  Maybe you should try living off the land for a while and see if that cures your goddamn sanctimony and utter retardation fuckwit.  Maybe God can take away all your technology for a year and see how well that suits you?  How about it?  No electricity and oil products or usage for ONE year?  You gonna butch up and back off or just pop off another cretinous lie to soothe you like a valium?

"occur overnight, it's apparently not happening at all.".

You're the one touting the end of the world overnight, dingleberry!  We're saying the opposite.  Do you even recognize the shit you're shoveling and have welcomed onto yourself?

I won't even credit you with the two braincells Samson did.  You got a howling void in that empty brainpan of yours, and for Pete's Sake shut your mouth cause the rest of us are getting a draft and sick of the noise!


----------



## JiggsCasey

Big Fitz said:


> Take 14 minutes out of your all-knowing lives, and watch these two short videos...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not spending 14 minutes watching a video that isn't worth the same time picking my nose.  How about you post the transcript instead of trying to waste my time?
Click to expand...


What's the difference? It would take you 14 minutes to read it, no doubt.

You won't watch it because you couldn't possibly refute it. Meanwhile, you're certain they're lying, even though you obviously have no idea what they said because you weren't brave enough to watch it. There's your position, in a nutshell.

Tool.



Big Fitz said:


> If global oil depletion is some myth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No no no.  You do NOT get to redefine the argument.  We are not ARGUING that we live on a FINITE world.  You do not get to make that lie.
Click to expand...


Actually, clown, you guys are all over the place, and some of you DO insist it's a myth. It's no lie to claim your allies here do just that. STFU.



Big Fitz said:


> We ARE arguing that your timeline is obscenely compressed!  What you have happening in minutes and hours and days are going to take years and decades and centuries in reality.  We are saying that technology, and economics are going to be fundamental bulwarks of both retrieving, processing and using oil as well as motivating people to find alternatives.
> 
> How can this be possible in the evil free markets!?  Oh noes!  It CAN'T be true that something simple such as PRICING SCARCITY acts as a negative feedback loop enticing people to produce new types of energy because it's PROFITABLE!



Yes, you've used this tired rationale before. And it was countered. Unfortunately, you bailed from the exchange. 

So, again. Free market change the price points for new investment. Great. So what happens in the 20-30 years until that new investment brings new oil, or new energy sources to the market?  In the meantime, what does that super high price point mean for the lower- to -middle-class consumer and businessperson? How many industries go under waiting for your genius "market solutions" to work themselves out? Perpetual recession is the RAMIFICATION of peak. Get it yet? Hope so, because it will only get worse. 

See, this is why you arrogant fools have no idea what you're ever talking about, and no idea how the logistics of this whole house of cards actually works.

You can squawk about "market solutions" all you like. This is about time frame, as much as anything. Your hope-based fixes are decades off. Collapse is beginning right now. 



Big Fitz said:


> You fucking Peaker retards always seem to think that people are not motivated by cash, or if they are, they're evil and they shouldn't be and must be stopped.  That somehow, because you hate money that makes it invalid as a motivator for the rest of the world, and incapable of doing ANYTHING good!



Wow. That's one big paragraph of straw man.



Big Fitz said:


> But here's a thought!  When oil gets rare... it will get expensive!  Is it getting expensive because of rarity right now?  NO!  New finds of millions billions *and TRILLIONS of barrels are being found every year* in new areas that are finally being explored thanks to technology.



This is completely and utterly false... Liar.



Big Fitz said:


> But but but... it's getting expensive!  Yeah, it is.  Why?  POLITICS!  Oh my gawrsh!  Asshole environazis are blocking domestic production and now trying to stop foreign production.  This is not true scarcity, it is politically enabled scarcity.



Politics have nothing to do with it. Again, if it's not scarce, WHERE is it? How many times do I have to ask that question before you actually acknowledge it without lamely saying "it's out there!" Oh? That nails it shut. ... 

See, you can't allude to any significant finds because you can't find any. This is confirmed by the men in that video you can't bare to watch, as well as the IEA, the Pentagon, ASPO, the EIA and our own Dept. of Energy.

Oh wait, ... they must all be lying. 



Big Fitz said:


> That's why you can't buy a supporter here.  You're too easily debunked by elementary logic, economics and sociology.  I suggest you study these things and maybe... MAYBE you'll see why we've already killed, skinned, gutted, seasoned, baked and eaten Chicken Little.



ROFMBAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Loser, I don't come here to "buy a supporter." I come here to counter typical connish fraud regarding the greatest crisis facing mankind, ... and I thoroughly enjoy it. You and your short-sighted pals here are no different then the denialists I deal with every day. ... In fact, you're far less knowledgeable of this subject matter than I'm used to dealing with. This is like slow-pitch softball on this sub forum. You didn't even know what EROEI was before May.



Big Fitz said:


> Blessed by God.



LOL. Just as I thought. Unfortunatley, hope is not an viable energy policy, Godder.



Big Fitz said:


> Or, are they somehow collectively lying?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's more likely.  I'd like to audit them and see where their money is coming from.
Click to expand...


Right. Retired Big Oil executives are all lying. They're also in cohoots with the federal government, and international energy analysts. It's all a grand conspiracy.

This rationalization brought to you by the same retarded minds who insist 9/11 would be too vast a conspiracy to ever keep silent.

Your situational ethics is showing again, chump-and-a-half.



Big Fitz said:


> Your support of their lies I predict is just due to rampant stupidity.



LOL... How do you get out of bed in the morning? Do you dress yourself?

My gawd, do you EVER suck at this.


----------



## Big Fitz

> some of you DO insist it's a myth.



Some is NOT me.  You are talking to me.  Therefore you can STFU yourself, bitch.



> In fact, you're far less knowledgeable at this subject matter than I'm used to dealing with.



But you've been debunked by elementary logic.  Oh look at the graph!  All the declines and leveling off correspond EXACTLY with political upheaval, legislation and war!  Huh... I wonder why that is?  Then after you have hard data, all your predictions smoothly decline like someone flipped a switch?  Anomaly perhaps?  That may fly with the slow group of third graders, but not anyone else.



> This is like slow-pitch softball.



And yet... you're playing special Olympics badminton?



> Unfortunatley, hope is not an viable energy policy, Godder.



Fucking bigot.



> This is completely and utterly false... Liar.



Trillions may have been an exaggeration.  But, billions is not.  Of course... that's not "oil" by the King Chicken Little the Last standard.  That's... oil...ish?



> Right. Retired Big Oil executives are all lying. They're also in cohoots with the federal government, and international energy analysts. It's all a grand conspiracy.



and... 



> Oh wait, ... they must all be lying.



Ding! For money and power.  First correct thing you've said all thread.  I bet there are people with enough hobby time out there that can find three times the hacks you have who think Imminent Peak Oil is full of shit.



> This rationalization brought to you by the same retarded minds who insist 9/11 would be too vast a conspiracy to ever keep silent.



I am not a conspiracy theorist.  I do not believe in grand conspiracies.  Too many people who can't keep their mouths shut.  BUT I do believe in conspiracies of a small scale (say under 10 people or so) because they do happen.  I do think your little 'pet experts' have an agenda to push, and I think they're doing so because they get something from it.  Attention, money, fame, love, little boys... I don't fucking know... but they are profiting from your asshattery.

BTW, how's that IPCC panel working out for you?  Conspiracy of 3 people created climategate.  A conspiracy of two individuals destroyed the glacier melt theory and all it took was one man, the head of the IPCC to keep his mouth shut for it to continue.  But he couldn't.  And it all fell apart.  But they all profiteered off of this by committing fraud.  Now you Peakers wants theirs, but yet, I can smash the theory in a few logical steps.



> Your situational ethics is showing again, chump-and-a-half.



Prove it, bitch.  Where am I making it up as I go.  I've been consistent this entire time.



> LOL... How do you get out of bed in the morning? Do you dress yourself?



I'm at the point where you must be watered twice a week.


----------



## JiggsCasey

Big Fitz said:


> some of you DO insist it's a myth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some is NOT me.  You are talking to me.  Therefore you can STFU yourself, bitch.
Click to expand...


Self-absorbed and sanctimonious much? I believe I'm taking on you and all your pals throughout this thread, ... and doing a bang-up job, to boot. 

I know this exchange is making you madder and madder, but do try and get over yourself.



Big Fitz said:


> In fact, you're far less knowledgeable at this subject matter than I'm used to dealing with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you've been debunked by elementary logic.  Oh look at the graph!  All the declines and leveling off correspond EXACTLY with political upheaval, legislation and war!  Huh... I wonder why that is?  Then after you have hard data, all your predictions smoothly decline like someone flipped a switch?  Anomaly perhaps?  That may fly with the slow group of third graders, but not anyone else.
Click to expand...


LOL!!!!!!!! You've debunked precisely nothing throughout the ENTIRETY of this exchange. You declaring victory reminds me of when Plaxico Burress spiked the ball at the 5 yardline when he arrogantly thought he was in the end zone.

It's so bad for you now, that you can't even bring yourself to acknowledge any of my main overall points when challenged to do so... That's because you can't.

1. where is the oil?
2. what happens to the small businessman when oil gets above $100-150/bl and higher?
3. how/why are all those entities "lying," yet still keeping it secret?



Big Fitz said:


> And yet... you're playing special Olympics badminton?



That's a question? No, I'm playing All-Star clean-up hitter, launching your tired, hope-based narrative softballs deep into the night and touching all bases each time. Do better.



Big Fitz said:


> Fucking bigot.



LOL. You can worship God however you like... Doesn't make for much of an energy policy though, sorry.



Big Fitz said:


> Trillions may have been an exaggeration.



At least you finally admit it, oh great drama queen... 



Big Fitz said:


> But, billions is not.  Of course... that's not "oil" by the King Chicken Little the Last standard.  That's... oil...ish?



The world consumes a billion barrels every 12 days, loser. When you can point to a new find in excess of 50 billion barrels (the kind we used to find constantly), you may have something. Otherwise, you're getting all mastubatory over kiddie pools and pretending you've debunked peak oil reality. You haven't even come close.



Big Fitz said:


> Ding! For money and power.  First correct thing you've said all thread.  I bet there are people with enough hobby time out there that can find three times the hacks you have who think Imminent Peak Oil is full of shit.



There's nothing I've said in this thread that was wrong. If I had, you'd have been man enough to acknowledge the multiple challenges put to you. Instead, you weaseled out, and punted to ineffectual personal ridicule. Yawn.

Your complete inability to counter the specific themes presented to you in this exchange prove, beyond any doubt, that you're getting your ass kicked on this topic. I'm sorry.



Big Fitz said:


> I am not a conspiracy theorist.  I do not believe in grand conspiracies.  Too many people who can't keep their mouths shut.  BUT I do believe in conspiracies of a small scale (say under 10 people or so) because they do happen.



LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And yet, here you are claiming that retired petrol geologists for Big Oil, independent energy analysts, the IEA, the U.S. Dept. of Energy, the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs, the EIA, ASPO, Oxford, the German government and countless other entities are all lying for some unmentioned purpose you can't put your finger on. No,  you don't believe in "grand conspiracies," or anything... 



Big Fitz said:


> BTW, how's that IPCC panel working out for you?  Conspiracy of 3 people created climategate.  A conspiracy of two individuals destroyed the glacier melt theory and all it took was one man, the head of the IPCC to keep his mouth shut for it to continue.  But he couldn't.  And it all fell apart.  But they all profiteered off of this by committing fraud.  Now you Peakers wants theirs, but yet, I can smash the theory in a few logical steps.



Man-made climate change is very real, regardless of how desperate you tool boxes play "gotcha" regarding IPCC. It's what you guys do. Find one anomoly, and cling to it out of sheer desperation in the hopes of creating doubt. It's the same game as when you try and claim the Dem party is "more racist than pubs are" because of goofy Robert Byrd. Yeah, makes sense.  Nevermind the mountain of evidence to the contrary. You have your one talking point, and you're sticking to it. LOL.



Big Fitz said:


> Your situational ethics is showing again, chump-and-a-half.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it, bitch.  Where am I making it up as I go.  I've been consistent this entire time.
Click to expand...


I don't need to. Anyone reading this exchange can see you treading water badly, and contradicting yourself left and right.

When stuck in a hole, the first thing you should do is stop digging. But you're just too arrogant and dumb to grasp that basic premise. Again, you SUCK at this.



Once more: 
- Where is the oil? 
- What will "market corrections" mean for the blue-collar consumer when energy is $150-bl? I mean, besides foreclosure?
- For what purpose are all those international entities lying, and how have they "kept the myth a secret" all this time?

Until you can offer plausible answers for those questions, your hysterical hand waving isn't convincing anyone of anything.  You can insult me on a personal level all you like. I'm right here waiting for you to do the work presented for you. But you won't. You'll punt to God and hope and free market solution. Zzzzzz.

Grow up, watch the videos, and then you may have a leg to stand on if you feel you can counter what they've said.


----------



## Samson

JiggsCasey said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> My state actually hired teachers to teach science, not just babysitters who ran projectors of teachers teaching science.  I wish they had used more movies.  LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, if you'd had teachers that showed more movies, then perhaps you'd understand the shrill whine of Peak Oilists that have been _Sounding the *ALARM*_ for the past 40 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your perpetual arrogance belies you. You'll learn. But then, considering the state of the world, and your continued ignorance to the symptoms, maybe you won't.
> 
> They've been right for 40 years.
Click to expand...


_Speaking of *perpetual*_.......you pointy-headed hysterics said in the 70's that we'd be hitting peak oil in the mid '80's 

Then, in the mid-80's you said it would happen by 2000....

Now that its 2010, its going to happen in 2015...AT THE LATEST!!!!

The only question is are you an idiot for your being perpetually WRONG, or for wondering

why you have _NO, Zero, NADA_ credability...

Happy, you at least have entertainment value.


----------



## Big Fitz

<ignores the rantings of a lunatic>



> - Where is the oil?



Being announced all the time throughout even mainstream media.



> - What will "market corrections" mean for the blue-collar consumer when energy is $150-bl? I mean, besides foreclosure?



You assume much of what never has been.  



> - For what purpose are all those international entities lying, and how have they "kept the myth a secret" all this time?



Read my previous post.  I'm done repeating it for you.



			
				 Samson said:
			
		

> Happy, you at least have entertainment value.



And like his predictions, it's an overinflated sense of his own entertainment value.  That IS one thing I agree is rapidly waning.  He's a very typical progressofascist as we've been seeing... standard Bush Derangement Syndrome, racism, Obama Worship Disorder, Christophobia, elitist narcissism.  King Chicken Little the Last is far from above average.  The only thing he excels in more is in staying focused on his sole psychosis better than Tardtard (Bfgrn) or RDolt.


----------



## JiggsCasey

Samson said:


> _Speaking of *perpetual*_.......you pointy-headed hysterics said in the 70's that we'd be hitting peak oil in the mid '80's



I never said anything of the kind, and those people are not me. Regardless, this talking point about the claims from the 70s is rooted in the infamous report "Limits to Growth" from the 70s by the Club of Rome, which said no such thing about peak oil in the 80s. Regardless, the report was quite prescient and accurate, regardless of how some readers interpreted (and distorted) the main themes.

You should stop making up straw man arguments and enter the debate honestly, or not at all, limited poster. Mmm-kay?



Samson said:


> Then, in the mid-80's you said it would happen by 2000....



I did? When? ... Heck, I'll humor you. Link to anyone from the 80s saying such about 2000. 

You're making up crap again. It's what you do.



Samson said:


> Now that its 2010, its going to happen in 2015...AT THE LATEST!!!!



The International Energy Agency, the Joint Chiefs and the Dept. of Energy said 10 million barrel shortfall by 2015, yes. I'm simply making idiots like yourself aware of their data. 

If they're wrong, please show the forum how they're wrong. 



Samson said:


> The only question is are you an idiot for your being perpetually WRONG, or for wondering



There is irony here. You see it, yes? Why don't you get back to your strong suit, classy one. Like debating which hair style makes Garafolo "fuckable."

Tool.



Samson said:


> why you have _NO, Zero, NADA_ credability...



Clown-and-a-half, I've put your tired argument away wet many months ago. You keep coming back for more beatings on the coat-tails of others who have to do the work (poorly) for you.

My credibility is impeccable, because I have the data on my side. You have straw man arguments, misrepresentations, and an utterly retarded grasp of market forces.

Run along now, asshat. Adults are talking.


----------



## JiggsCasey

Big Fitz said:


> <ignores the rantings of a lunatic>



You need to keep telling yourself that, because your argument is failing badly. You can repeat the claim to yourself 100 times if you like, but this "lunatic" continues to deconstruct your piss-poor, hope-based logic.



Big Fitz said:


> - Where is the oil?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being announced all the time throughout even mainstream media.
Click to expand...


That's a classic non-answer, and further proof that you're completely out of bullets.

Once again, where? In what proven amount? Why don't you actually man-up, and provide some links? Are you afraid that you'll fail again, and offer a list that totals a whole 10 billion barrels? Or stuff with wording like "could contain 100 years of oil!!!!!" from energy companies, themselves, looking to spark investment. ... LOL.

You won't provide a falsifiable claim because you can't. It doesn't exist. Better to punt to "announced all the time thoughout the media... ."   Riiiiiiight.





Big Fitz said:


> - What will "market corrections" mean for the blue-collar consumer when energy is $150-bl? I mean, besides foreclosure?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You assume much of what never has been.
Click to expand...


Wrong again, Godder. I make rational assessments based on data, the exponential function and the basic laws of Thermodynamics. A few concepts you appear completely unable to grasp.



Big Fitz said:


> - For what purpose are all those international entities lying, and how have they "kept the myth a secret" all this time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read my previous post.  I'm done repeating it for you.
Click to expand...


ROFLMAO! ... You never answered it. You punted to "audit them!!" You didn't explain why they would be lying, you merely repeated the claim a different way.

You are so awful at this, I almost feel sorry for you. Keep dancing your way around these direct challenges, and anyone reading this is now convinced you're completely full of shit. I was convinced within my first 3-4 exchanges with you many months ago. 

You're dumb, but worse, you're unabashedly arrogant. A terribly dangerous combination.



Big Fitz said:


> And like his predictions, it's an overinflated sense of his own entertainment value.  That IS one thing I agree is rapidly waning.  He's a very typical progressofascist as we've been seeing... standard Bush Derangement Syndrome, racism, Obama Worship Disorder, Christophobia, elitist narcissism.  King Chicken Little the Last is far from above average.  The only thing he excels in more is in staying focused on his sole psychosis better than Tardtard (Bfgrn) or RDolt.



LOL... There is so much fail in this paragraph. Progressofascist? That's a lovely made-up term by cons who can't come to grips with the fact that they've been unyieldingly supporting corporate fascism since Reagan took office. You guys have distorted the term fascism to such a degree that you actually try and apply it to your polar opposites. That's rich. But you're not fooling anyone here, neo-fascist.

You do the same with the baseless (and ironic) "racism" claim, even though your ideological kin have personified racism in America for all to behold.  Next you'll be telling us blue is red, night is day, circles can have corners and oil is unlimited... oh wait.

I've said nothing racist, I've expressed no "phobia" of Christ, and I've not uttered one iota of support for Obama's policies. He is, in fact, failing on energy. ... So, no... That's just you making up straw man arguments. It's what you guys do when your own position becomes wholly untenable and desperate.

Again, Big Fit...  Where is the oil? How much? 

If you can't do it, then I'd suggest it's time for you to


----------



## Big Fitz

And so, the reign of King Chicken Little the Last past into obscurity as no one was willing to listen to him anymore.

Welcome to you new kingdom.  Ignoreland.  You may enjoy the company of other retards that are irredeemable by sanity.

Sod off you delusional freak.


----------



## JiggsCasey

Big Fitz said:


> And so, the reign of King Chicken Little the Last past into obscurity as no one was willing to listen to him anymore.
> 
> Welcome to you new kingdom.  Ignoreland.  You may enjoy the company of other retards that are irredeemable by sanity.
> 
> Sod off you delusional freak.



Unwilling to listen? More like unable to counter.

LOL.... So, for the sixth time, when challenged to do the work, you tuck tail and run.

It's a good decision for you to put me on ignore. This way, you no  longer have to see your argument taken behind the woodshed... Run along now, limited poster. You're horrible at this.


----------

