# Oil discoveries dispel "Peak Oil" as myth



## mdn2000

We are finding new oil reserves every year, maybe not the USA but other countries. Brazil is extremely active and in the last couple years they have become Oil independent. Soon if not today they hope to be an exporter of petroleum. 

Seems like professor's and scientist's theories are proven wrong, what is theory of Peak Oil in light of recent petroleum discoveries.

OilVoice | Petrobras Announces Discovery of Light Oil to the South of Santos Basin



> Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. - Petrobras announces that it has confirmed the presence of light oil in well 1-BRSA-870-SPS (1-SPS-76), located to the south of Santos Basin, in sandstones reservoirs, similar to those found in the accumulations of Tiro and Sidon. The discovery is located around 15 km of the Tiro and Sidon area.





> This discovery confirms the success of the exploratory strategy in the search for the formation of a new production hub in the southeastern part of Santos Basin which may be integrated by a series of already discovered fields, such as Caravela, Cavalo Marinho, Coral and Tiro-Sidon, as well as others to be discovered or in evaluation process, such as that of well 1-BRSA-870-SPS in the Marujá prospect.


----------



## Mr. H.

Jiggs Casey lecture in 3... 2... 1....


----------



## JiggsCasey

LOL.... you read the story, didn't you? What's the total they think they've found? Curiously no mention of that.  Yawn.

These "finds" pop up all the time, and every time, "nothing to see here" clowns insist it's evidence of oil abundance. Then, they get pinned down on acknowledging the figures, and they're forced to admit proven reserve totals in the tens of millions, or perhaps 2-3 billion barrels, at best. Every time.

Talk to me when you can allude to a centralized find of proven light crude in excess of 20-100 billion. Because that's what we used to find 2-3 times per year in the 40s, 50s and 60s, and that's what our empire is built upon. And we need to find about 7 "Ghawars" just to maintain stasis, going forward, let alone growth.

*edit* yup, as expected... 280 million barrels. Yawn-tacular. 

_Preliminary analysis indicates that the Campos Basin has recoverable volumes of 280 million barrels of light oil. Geologically similar reservoirs had already been identified in the Santos Basin by drilling two wells in the Marlin Sul field. These discoveries are a result of the efforts and the modern technology that the company has been using in other production areas.?
_​
We use 85 million barrels each and every day. So I guess 3.5 days of new oil is "proof" that "everything is fine, and Hubbert's curve is some "myth". 

Do better.


----------



## mdn2000

Brazil has found oil, its changed the import/export dynamic, for the first time Brazil is now an exporter of oil.

Brazil has increased use of oil domestically and has gone from being an importer of oil to an exporter. 

Peak oil, if you listen and read you will notice its called Peak Oil Production, as in we have reached refinery capacity, as far as reserves go, we have no way of estimating how large the current reserves are let alone how large unknown discoveries are.

Latest Brazil Oil Find Could Be World's Largest In 20 Years - WSJ.com



> RIO DE JANEIRO (Dow Jones)--The latest oil and gas find in Brazil's ballyhooed presalt offshore region could be the biggest yet discovered in the world's pre-eminent deepwater frontier, and perhaps the largest the world has seen in two decades, a government official said Monday.
> 
> The Libra prospect is estimated to hold reserves of between 7 billion and 8 billion barrels of oil equivalent, Marco Antonio Almeida, the secretary for oil, gas and renewable fuels at Brazil's Mines and Energy Ministry, told the Rio Oil & Gas 2010 conference.
> 
> The estimate was made by Gaffney Cline & Associates, or GCA, which was hired by the government to audit reserves, and was based on seismic data and similarities to nearby areas, said Almeida, adding that an appraisal well to confirm the numbers should be completed in 30 days.
> 
> "We expect it to be the world's largest discovery in the past 20 years," Almeida said.
> 
> Libra is the latest in a series of oil discoveries made deep below the ocean bed in the Santos Basin, off the coasts of Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo states in southeastern Brazil. The oil lies more than 2,000 meters underwater, and an additional 5,000 meters below sand, rock and a shifting layer of salt--giving rise to the region's pre-salt moniker.
> 
> The hubbub surrounding this region started in 2007, when the country unveiled the Tupi prospect in the Santos Basin, which was estimated to hold between 5 billion and 8 billion barrels, making it the Western Hemisphere's largest discovery since Mexico's Cantarell nearly three decades ago.
> 
> If confirmed, Libra could end up being larger than Tupi, Almeida said.
> 
> Libra will be the first of Brazil's presalt oilfields to be auctioned off under the new production-sharing regime proposed by Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva last year. The measure still needs to be passed by Brazil's Congress, which could take place after the country's October national election


----------



## JiggsCasey

"Oil equivalent?"

Again, your article seems very shy about stating PROVEN reserves. Tricky language like "could contain as much as...." doesn't convince anyone of anything. Regardless, 5-8 billion barrels of "oil equivalent" off the coast of Brazil isn't gonna do much of anything for global peak.

Worse, mocking peak because of this piddly find is the very definition of hubris.


----------



## mdn2000

JiggsCasey said:


> "Oil equivalent?"
> 
> Again, your article seems very shy about stating PROVEN reserves. Tricky language like "could contain as much as...." doesn't convince anyone of anything. Regardless, 5-8 billion barrels of "oil equivalent" off the coast of Brazil isn't gonna do much of anything for global peak.
> 
> Worse, mocking peak because of this piddly find is the very definition of hubris.



I know my article lacked what you pointed out earlier, I expected this response and have no retort. 

I understand the failings of links and articles to prove points. 

Still, its a fact Brazil has become an exporter of oil.

What does the BP disaster teach us about peak oil, that there are known reserves of such great magnitude its extremely dangerous to tap said oil reserve.

Anyhow, I agree my articles do not prove a point, I can say the last four years of going to Brazil I have seen offshore oil platforms being built and super-tankers converted to offshore oil processing platforms, as built by Halliburton, which reminds me I have met Halliburton engineers in Brazil as well as dozens of platform workers. 

Make no mistake, the oil industry in Brazil is growing, and not by a little bit, will they pass Saudi Arabia or Venezuela, I dont think so, but they are the experts at finding deep oil offshore. 

New discoveries in Brazil, accounted for in the Peak Oil theory, without googling, I say no.


----------



## editec

*Cheap* oil peaked a long long time ago.


----------



## KissMy

The science quoted by the doomers below said we should have been out of oil 100 years ago. Amazing, Its a miracle we survived. God has obviously put more oil in the ground for the last hundred years.



> 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"



The chart below shows new production capacity is outpacing actual production. Demand cannot keep pace with the new supplies of fuels added to capacity. 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.







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.








*Growth is possible once Doomocrats are out of office.*


----------



## JBeukema

mdn2000 said:


> we have no way of estimating how large the current reserves are let alone how large unknown discoveries are.



Which means there's no evidence of some mystical hidden reserve that will save us all. We can't afford to assume more will magically appear- especially with more nations becoming industrialized and demand increasing.

Not the mention that so many of the reserves are in unfriendly nations. We might find more and extend the date, but it remains a finite and non-renewable resource.


----------



## JBeukema

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Internal-Combustion-Corporations-Governments-Alternatives/dp/0312359071]Amazon.com: Internal Combustion: How Corporations and Governments Addicted the World to Oil and Derailed the Alternatives (9780312359072): Edwin Black: Books[/ame]


----------



## JBeukema

KissMy said:


> The science quoted by the doomers below said we should have been out of oil 100 years ago. Amazing, Its a miracle we survived. God has obviously put more oil in the ground for the last hundred years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


We are, in fact, dependent on foreign 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.



Increase in rate of use does not mean more magically appears to replace it. If I drive faster, i burn more gas. All that means is I run out faster.


----------



## Defiant1

mdn2000 said:


> We are finding new oil reserves every year, maybe not the USA but other countries. Brazil is extremely active and in the last couple years they have become Oil independent. Soon if not today they hope to be an exporter of petroleum.
> 
> Seems like professor's and scientist's theories are proven wrong, what is theory of Peak Oil in light of recent petroleum discoveries.
> 
> OilVoice | Petrobras Announces Discovery of Light Oil to the South of Santos Basin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. - Petrobras announces that it has confirmed the presence of light oil in well 1-BRSA-870-SPS (1-SPS-76), located to the south of Santos Basin, in sandstones reservoirs, similar to those found in the accumulations of Tiro and Sidon. The discovery is located around 15 km of the Tiro and Sidon area.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This discovery confirms the success of the exploratory strategy in the search for the formation of a new production hub in the southeastern part of Santos Basin which may be integrated by a series of already discovered fields, such as Caravela, Cavalo Marinho, Coral and Tiro-Sidon, as well as others to be discovered or in evaluation process, such as that of well 1-BRSA-870-SPS in the Marujá prospect.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Be careful.  If you destroy the "Peak Oilers" belief system they may have to go back to church.


----------



## JiggsCasey

mdn2000 said:


> I know my article lacked what you pointed out earlier, I expected this response and have no retort.
> 
> I understand the failings of links and articles to prove points.
> 
> Still, its a fact Brazil has become an exporter of oil.
> 
> What does the BP disaster teach us about peak oil, that there are known reserves of such great magnitude its extremely dangerous to tap said oil reserve.
> 
> Anyhow, I agree my articles do not prove a point, I can say the last four years of going to Brazil I have seen offshore oil platforms being built and super-tankers converted to offshore oil processing platforms, as built by Halliburton, which reminds me I have met Halliburton engineers in Brazil as well as dozens of platform workers.
> 
> Make no mistake, the oil industry in Brazil is growing, and not by a little bit, will they pass Saudi Arabia or Venezuela, I dont think so, but they are the experts at finding deep oil offshore.
> 
> New discoveries in Brazil, accounted for in the Peak Oil theory, without googling, I say no.



So, you create a thread titled "discoveres dispel peak is a myth" and then concede that it doesn't show that at all.

Once again, of course there are going to be discoveries here and there. Tiny discoveries compared to what we used to find. Irrelevant finds, up against ever-increasing demand. The point is, as confirmed by the USGS and the IEA, is that new discoveries are not keeping up with existing dying capacity.... and haven't for 20+ years.


----------



## rdean

KissMy said:


> *The science quoted by the doomers below said we should have been out of oil 100 years ago.* Amazing, Its a miracle we survived. God has obviously put more oil in the ground for the last hundred years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The chart below shows new production capacity is outpacing actual production. Demand cannot keep pace with the new supplies of fuels added to capacity. 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Growth is possible once Doomocrats are out of office.*
Click to expand...


You have got to be a Republican.  They are the only ones who use "science" from "1919" to make some kind of "point".  
















http://www.oilandgasuk.co.uk/public...ion/Discovering_the_Underground_Structure.cfm


----------



## CrusaderFrank

The Space program has made a total mockery of the twin notions of "Peak Oil" and that Earth based hydrocarbons are "Fossil Fuels"

The planets and even moons are awash in hydrocarbons and there were never dinosaurs on any of them.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Hydrocarbon lake finally confirmed on Titan | COSMOS magazine

"Cassini's visual and mapping instrument observed a lake &#8211; Ontario Lacus &#8211; in Titan's south polar region during a close Cassini flyby in December 2007. The lake is roughly 20,000 square kilometres in area, slightly larger than its namesake, North America's Lake Ontario. "

And it's a lake of "Fossil fuels"!  Eeek!  How did the velicoraptors get to Titan????


----------



## rdean

This is cute:

OPEC will never run out of oil | Energy Bulletin

OPEC member countries now hold over 1 trillion barrels of crude oil reserves, having already produced 400 billion barrels since the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries was founded 50 years ago, Saudi Arabian oil minister Ali Naimi said Tuesday.

"When it was founded, the members of the organization had around 300 billion barrels of oil reserves and in the last 50 years, has produced over 400 billion barrels," Naimi told a symposium marking the group's 50th anniversary.

"[OPEC] still has more than 1 trillion barrels, which places it in a unique position in terms of reserves to continue supplying petroleum to the world for several long years and to exploit these reserves for the benefit of future generations," he added.

*It's quite amazing&#8212;Ali al-Naimi is bragging about OPEC's fraudulent reserves accounting! Seriously, Homo sapiens is about 200,000 years old in the fossil record. Is this the best we can do?*


----------



## CrusaderFrank

rdean said:


> This is cute:
> 
> <Snipping stuff Rdean doesn't understand anyway>
> 
> Seriously, Homo sapiens is about 200,000 years old in the fossil record. Is this the best we can do?[/B]



Clearly not, maybe you should stop posting? That would help


----------



## JiggsCasey

KissMy said:


> The science quoted by the doomers below said we should have been out of oil 100 years ago. Amazing, Its a miracle we survived. God has obviously put more oil in the ground for the last hundred years.



We've been over this, and you bailed from the exchange. The fact that you're attempting to trot out the same irrelevancy to a newer audience doesn't change the fail of your tired rationale. Short term capacity based on an influx of heavy carbon liquids is not evidence of "plenty." It's evidence of desperate (and far more expensive) measures to keep feeding the beast.



KissMy said:


> The chart below shows new production capacity is outpacing actual production. Demand cannot keep pace with the new supplies of fuels added to capacity. 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.



Oil *storage* "glut" is very short term. That's like saying "we have two gallons of milk in the fridge, that should get a family of four through the winter." Tool.



KissMy said:


> 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.



It's adorable watching flat earthers allude to month-to-month comparisons as evidence of long term trends. World light crude production has remained flat since 2004. That's well documented, cool guy.



KissMy said:


> 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.



You must be stuck on stupid.

All you've done is shown mankind's desperate and increased reliance on heavy oil - shale and tar sands. Light crude has flatlined, THAT is the issue here. Heavy oils that return a 1.5:1 or 2:1 ratio are devastating to oil companies, and will not sustain us going forward.

You really have NO IDEA what you're talking about, and that was painfully evidence last time you entered the fray on this issue. Educate yourself, and examine the executive summary of the latest IEA report that came out last week. 

_The worlds energy system is at a crossroads. Current global trends in energy supply
and consumption are patently unsustainable  environmentally, economically,
socially._​
((Cliffs: "Despite our own data, and despite what our own former chief Fatih Birol says over and over again, we don't believe in peak oil. ... That being said, if vital investment and global consensus is actually met in order to cover our as-yet unknown light blue wedge below, industrial nations be relatively fine for 30 years. ... If it's not met -- and we don't really know how it will be met -- and the capital and initiative is not there, we're quite f*cked... and very soon.))

*IEA World Energy Outlook 2010 Now Out; a Preliminary Look
*Posted by Gail the Actuary on November 9, 2010 - 10:40am
Topic: Supply/Production

_The International Energy Agency issued its annual energy forecast today for 2010. It consists of a three volume report, plus an executive summary and a press release. The website can be found here.

In the next few weeks, we will be analyzing the report. At this point, we can only point to a few of the summary findings. One clear concern is that demand will be rising--especially from China and India. Another is that prices (in inflation-adjusted terms) will be rising. A third concern is that conventional oil production will no longer be able to rise.






The above scenario shows conventional crude oil on a plateau to 2035 at a level below recent production. This graph is from the "New Policies" scenario, so reflects some cutback in demand as a result of governmental policies from what the reference scenario would assume.

...

The size of ultimately recoverable resources of both conventional and unconventional oil is a major source of uncertainty for the long&#8208;term outlook for world oil production.

*But if governments do nothing or little more than at present, then demand will continue to increase, supply costs will rise, the economic burden of oil use will grow, vulnerability to supply disruptions will increase and the global environment will suffer serious damage*._​_[/QUOTE]




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







[/quote]

Again, stockpiles in tankers are not longterm capacity. Perhaps some day, your limited head will get around that fact._


----------



## JBeukema

CrusaderFrank said:


> Hydrocarbon lake finally confirmed on Titan | COSMOS magazine
> 
> "Cassini's visual and mapping instrument observed a lake  Ontario Lacus  in Titan's south polar region during a close Cassini flyby in December 2007. The lake is roughly 20,000 square kilometres in area, slightly larger than its namesake, North America's Lake Ontario. "
> 
> And it's a lake of "Fossil fuels"!  Eeek!  How did the velicoraptors get to Titan????


I get the distinct impression that you're an idiot


----------



## rdean

JBeukema said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hydrocarbon lake finally confirmed on Titan | COSMOS magazine
> 
> "Cassini's visual and mapping instrument observed a lake  Ontario Lacus  in Titan's south polar region during a close Cassini flyby in December 2007. The lake is roughly 20,000 square kilometres in area, slightly larger than its namesake, North America's Lake Ontario. "
> 
> And it's a lake of "Fossil fuels"!  Eeek!  How did the velicoraptors get to Titan????
> 
> 
> 
> I get the distinct impression that you're an idiot
Click to expand...


It's no impression.  It's carved in stone.


----------



## mdn2000

JBeukema said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The science quoted by the doomers below said we should have been out of oil 100 years ago. Amazing, Its a miracle we survived. God has obviously put more oil in the ground for the last hundred years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are, in fact, dependent on foreign 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Increase in rate of use does not mean more magically appears to replace it. If I drive faster, i burn more gas. All that means is I run out faster.
Click to expand...


Hence, why use oil faster to make windmills that produce less power per barrel used, it takes barrels of oils to make windmills. You can build more fossil plants that produce more energy with, we use less oil, building fossil fuel plants than by building windmills.


----------



## mdn2000

What about oxygen, when do we reach peak oxygen?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JBeukema said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hydrocarbon lake finally confirmed on Titan | COSMOS magazine
> 
> "Cassini's visual and mapping instrument observed a lake  Ontario Lacus  in Titan's south polar region during a close Cassini flyby in December 2007. The lake is roughly 20,000 square kilometres in area, slightly larger than its namesake, North America's Lake Ontario. "
> 
> And it's a lake of "Fossil fuels"!  Eeek!  How did the velicoraptors get to Titan????
> 
> 
> 
> I get the distinct impression that you're an idiot
Click to expand...


Perfect clueless answer.  Please tell us why hydrocarbons on Earth are necessarily different from those on other planets and moons.

Take your time, be sure to include "velicoraptors pressure cooked over geological time" in your non-answer


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Colorized blue hydrocarbon lake the size of Lake Ontario on a moon with a temperature at about -300F. How is it a cold cold Moon can make a hydrocarbon lake but a robust, warm, geologically active planet like Earth need dead dinos to do the same thing?


----------



## Modbert

At some point, it will not be fiscally viable for oil companies to drill for oil in certain places unless the prices for oil skyrocket. Not only with U.S dependence on foreign oil, but China and India's as well going forward. There is only so much oil in the world that is realistically in reach, at some point we will need a renewable energy source or we will all be left in the dark.

Those who want us to stay addicted to petroleum like a drug user getting his fix is only asking for trouble in the future.


----------



## Big Fitz

CrusaderFrank said:


> Colorized blue hydrocarbon lake the size of Lake Ontario on a moon with a temperature at about -300F. How is it a cold cold Moon can make a hydrocarbon lake but a robust, warm, geologically active planet like Earth need dead dinos to do the same thing?


oopsie!


----------



## Old Rocks

Big Fitz said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colorized blue hydrocarbon lake the size of Lake Ontario on a moon with a temperature at about -300F. How is it a cold cold Moon can make a hydrocarbon lake but a robust, warm, geologically active planet like Earth need dead dinos to do the same thing?
> 
> 
> 
> oopsie!
Click to expand...


Of course, should certain braindead individuals do some research on the chemical formulas of said hydrocarbons, they might have an answer. But research is a no-no to Conservatives, just listen to Limpbaugh, Insannity, and Beck-a-Beck-Beck-Beck.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Old Rocks said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colorized blue hydrocarbon lake the size of Lake Ontario on a moon with a temperature at about -300F. How is it a cold cold Moon can make a hydrocarbon lake but a robust, warm, geologically active planet like Earth need dead dinos to do the same thing?
> 
> 
> 
> oopsie!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, should certain braindead individuals do some research on the chemical formulas of said hydrocarbons, they might have an answer. But research is a no-no to Conservatives, just listen to Limpbaugh, Insannity, and Beck-a-Beck-Beck-Beck.
Click to expand...


Chemical formula??????????????????????????????????????  Did you say "Chemical formula"?????????

Do you mean that ethane has a difference formula on Earth than on Titan?

Please explain how you think the chemical formula for ethane and other simple hydrocarbons difference from planet to planet? Does it have anything to do with "Man Made Global Warming?"

And I know for a fact that to the extent anyone else like Hannity, Beck or Limbaugh is even talking about this, I said it first.  

Also, pretty fucking funny to hear someone who cannot site a single, repeatable laboratory experiment showing how a 200PPM increase in CO2 (on Earth, that is) causes a measurable increase in temperature talk about "research"


----------



## loosecannon

JiggsCasey said:


> Worse, mocking peak because of this piddly find is the very definition of hubris.



No mdn2000 is truly stupid. Like remarkably stupid. He is too stupid to even realize that he has shit for brains. I am embarrassed for him, because he is too stupid to even get it.


----------



## loosecannon

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> oopsie!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, should certain braindead individuals do some research on the chemical formulas of said hydrocarbons, they might have an answer. But research is a no-no to Conservatives, just listen to Limpbaugh, Insannity, and Beck-a-Beck-Beck-Beck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chemical formula??????????????????????????????????????  Did you say "Chemical formula"?????????
> 
> Do you mean that ethane has a difference formula on Earth than on Titan?
> 
> Please explain how you think the chemical formula for ethane and other simple hydrocarbons difference from planet to planet? Does it have anything to do with "Man Made Global Warming?"
> 
> And I know for a fact that to the extent anyone else like Hannity, Beck or Limbaugh is even talking about this, I said it first.
> 
> Also, pretty fucking funny to hear someone who cannot site a single, repeatable laboratory experiment showing how a 200PPM increase in CO2 (on Earth, that is) causes a measurable increase in temperature talk about "research"
Click to expand...


Oh get over yourself. We have no idea what the chemical makeup of distant planets is. If we could do that we could detect cancer with a .015 second scan at every grocery store.


> Scientists made the discovery using data from an instrument aboard NASA's Cassini spacecraft, currently in orbit around Saturn. The instrument identified chemically different materials based on the way they absorb and reflect infrared light.
> 
> Murky haze
> 
> Before Cassini, scientists thought Titan would have global oceans of methane, ethane and other light hydrocarbons. However, more than 40 flybys of Titan by Cassini show no such global oceans exist. They have revealed hundreds of dark lake-like features, but until now, we didn't know whether these features were liquid or simply solid, reflective material.
> 
> "This is the first observation that really pins down that Titan has a surface lake filled with liquid," said Bob Brown of the University of Arizona, Tucson. Brown leads a team of scientists controlling Cassini's visual and mapping instruments, who report their find today in the U.K. journal Nature.
> 
> Ethane and several other simple hydrocarbons have been identified in Titan's atmosphere, which consists of 95 per cent nitrogen, and five per cent methane and other hydrocarbons, including ethane. These are created by the breakdown of methane by sunlight, and some react further to form fine aerosol particles.
> 
> These hydrocarbons form a murky haze, which makes identifying materials on the surface difficult, but liquid ethane was identified using a technique



Pure speculation addled with premature optimism and self obsorbtion.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

loosecannon said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, should certain braindead individuals do some research on the chemical formulas of said hydrocarbons, they might have an answer. But research is a no-no to Conservatives, just listen to Limpbaugh, Insannity, and Beck-a-Beck-Beck-Beck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chemical formula??????????????????????????????????????  Did you say "Chemical formula"?????????
> 
> Do you mean that ethane has a difference formula on Earth than on Titan?
> 
> Please explain how you think the chemical formula for ethane and other simple hydrocarbons difference from planet to planet? Does it have anything to do with "Man Made Global Warming?"
> 
> And I know for a fact that to the extent anyone else like Hannity, Beck or Limbaugh is even talking about this, I said it first.
> 
> Also, pretty fucking funny to hear someone who cannot site a single, repeatable laboratory experiment showing how a 200PPM increase in CO2 (on Earth, that is) causes a measurable increase in temperature talk about "research"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh get over yourself. We have no idea what the chemical makeup of distant planets is. If we could do that we could detect cancer with a .015 second scan at every grocery store.
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists made the discovery using data from an instrument aboard NASA's Cassini spacecraft, currently in orbit around Saturn. The instrument identified chemically different materials based on the way they absorb and reflect infrared light.
> 
> Murky haze
> 
> Before Cassini, scientists thought Titan would have global oceans of methane, ethane and other light hydrocarbons. However, more than 40 flybys of Titan by Cassini show no such global oceans exist. They have revealed hundreds of dark lake-like features, but until now, we didn't know whether these features were liquid or simply solid, reflective material.
> 
> "This is the first observation that really pins down that Titan has a surface lake filled with liquid," said Bob Brown of the University of Arizona, Tucson. Brown leads a team of scientists controlling Cassini's visual and mapping instruments, who report their find today in the U.K. journal Nature.
> 
> Ethane and several other simple hydrocarbons have been identified in Titan's atmosphere, which consists of 95 per cent nitrogen, and five per cent methane and other hydrocarbons, including ethane. These are created by the breakdown of methane by sunlight, and some react further to form fine aerosol particles.
> 
> These hydrocarbons form a murky haze, which makes identifying materials on the surface difficult, but liquid ethane was identified using a technique
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pure speculation addled with premature optimism and self obsorbtion.
Click to expand...


Are you THAT Stupid????

You should just put yourself on ignore.  I can handle only so much stupid in one thread and you just pinned the meter


----------



## mdn2000

Modbert said:


> At some point, it will not be fiscally viable for oil companies to drill for oil in certain places unless the prices for oil skyrocket. Not only with U.S dependence on foreign oil, but China and India's as well going forward. There is only so much oil in the world that is realistically in reach, at some point we will need a renewable energy source or we will all be left in the dark.
> 
> Those who want us to stay addicted to petroleum like a drug user getting his fix is only asking for trouble in the future.



The only thing close to renewable is Nuclear energy. Ask yourself, whats better, using a 100 gallons of oil to build a nuclear power plant that can power Los Angeles or using 100,000 barrels of oil to make 1,000 windmills that could never power Los Angeles. 

Wind turbines, Solar, use too much oil to make and they need to be replaced more often than Nuclear power plants.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

No matter what planet or Moon it's on ethane is still C2H6, same way methane is CH4.


----------



## Big Fitz

CrusaderFrank said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chemical formula??????????????????????????????????????  Did you say "Chemical formula"?????????
> 
> Do you mean that ethane has a difference formula on Earth than on Titan?
> 
> Please explain how you think the chemical formula for ethane and other simple hydrocarbons difference from planet to planet? Does it have anything to do with "Man Made Global Warming?"
> 
> And I know for a fact that to the extent anyone else like Hannity, Beck or Limbaugh is even talking about this, I said it first.
> 
> Also, pretty fucking funny to hear someone who cannot site a single, repeatable laboratory experiment showing how a 200PPM increase in CO2 (on Earth, that is) causes a measurable increase in temperature talk about "research"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh get over yourself. We have no idea what the chemical makeup of distant planets is. If we could do that we could detect cancer with a .015 second scan at every grocery store.
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists made the discovery using data from an instrument aboard NASA's Cassini spacecraft, currently in orbit around Saturn. The instrument identified chemically different materials based on the way they absorb and reflect infrared light.
> 
> Murky haze
> 
> Before Cassini, scientists thought Titan would have global oceans of methane, ethane and other light hydrocarbons. However, more than 40 flybys of Titan by Cassini show no such global oceans exist. They have revealed hundreds of dark lake-like features, but until now, we didn't know whether these features were liquid or simply solid, reflective material.
> 
> "This is the first observation that really pins down that Titan has a surface lake filled with liquid," said Bob Brown of the University of Arizona, Tucson. Brown leads a team of scientists controlling Cassini's visual and mapping instruments, who report their find today in the U.K. journal Nature.
> 
> Ethane and several other simple hydrocarbons have been identified in Titan's atmosphere, which consists of 95 per cent nitrogen, and five per cent methane and other hydrocarbons, including ethane. These are created by the breakdown of methane by sunlight, and some react further to form fine aerosol particles.
> 
> These hydrocarbons form a murky haze, which makes identifying materials on the surface difficult, but liquid ethane was identified using a technique
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pure speculation addled with premature optimism and self obsorbtion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you THAT Stupid????
> 
> You should just put yourself on ignore.  I can handle only so much stupid in one thread and you just pinned the meter
Click to expand...

Oh damn!  ROFLMAO..!!!! That's funny!  Put yourself on ignore.  I did my part and ignored this dip a while ago, but dayum!  I'm glad you had quoted that though.  Funny stuff and a beautiful retort.  Wish I could rep ya for it.

And the answer to your question is yes... yes they are.  Apparently chemistry is a subjective science when looking at another planet or moon.  It can't be objective... that'd be discriminatory and unfair that we inflict our physical realities on the rest of the universe.


----------



## uscitizen

And the USA exports over 1.5 million bbls oil daily.  That means what?


----------



## Samson

uscitizen said:


> And the USA exports over 1.5 million bbls oil daily.  That means what?



Someone wants it more than US.


----------



## Samson

loosecannon said:


> Pure speculation addled with premature optimism and self obsorbtion.



This pretty much encompasses all speculation.

Point?


----------



## Big Fitz

uscitizen said:


> And the USA exports over 1.5 million bbls oil daily.  That means what?


I seem to recall one of the chicken little cult reminding me most of that was in specialty oil products like fuel and solvents, not fuel.  

Lots of WD-40.


----------



## Samson

JBeukema said:


> Increase in rate of use does not mean more magically appears to replace it. If I drive faster, i burn more gas. All that means is I run out faster.





Is anyone arguing that fossil fuel is a renewable resource?

No.

The arguement from the "Peak Oil" kooks has been, _for the past 30 years_, that any year now, fossil fuels will suddenly disappear.

And every year for the past 30 years, they've been proven to be kooks, and they all agree that "the SKY ISN'T FALLING....._YET!_ but that if you wait another 5 years, just wait, _AGAIN_, their predictions will eventually come true."

Despite being wrong, over and over again, they love playing chicken-little.

Its a symptom of attention whoring (younger generations have never heard the 30-year-old stale tale, and university professors hate to change their lectures), and severe symptoms of mental illness that manifests itself in all OCD.


----------



## uscitizen

Big Fitz said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the USA exports over 1.5 million bbls oil daily.  That means what?
> 
> 
> 
> I seem to recall one of the chicken little cult reminding me most of that was in specialty oil products like fuel and solvents, not fuel.
> 
> Lots of WD-40.
Click to expand...


Yep I checked back and most of it is refined products but not including WD40 level of finished products.  However we do export crude from CA and Alaska.
And we import far more oil derivitives than we export.
Most of our imported gasoline is from european countries.  go figure, those socialist countries can produce it cheap enough for us to import and resell it here?


----------



## KissMy

Samson said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Increase in rate of use does not mean more magically appears to replace it. If I drive faster, i burn more gas. All that means is I run out faster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is anyone arguing that fossil fuel is a renewable resource?
> 
> No.
> 
> The arguement from the "Peak Oil" kooks has been, _for the past 30 years_, that any year now, fossil fuels will suddenly disappear.
> 
> And every year for the past 30 years, they've been proven to be kooks, and they all agree that "the SKY ISN'T FALLING....._YET!_ but that if you wait another 5 years, just wait, _AGAIN_, their predictions will eventually come true."
> 
> Despite being wrong, over and over again, they love playing chicken-little.
> 
> Its a symptom of attention whoring (younger generations have never heard the 30-year-old stale tale, and university professors hate to change their lectures), and severe symptoms of mental illness that manifests itself in all OCD.
Click to expand...


*30 years hell, try at least 91 years.!!!*


> 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"


----------



## Samson

uscitizen said:


> Most of our imported gasoline is from european countries.  go figure, those socialist countries can produce it cheap enough for us to import and resell it here?



Source?


----------



## Samson

KissMy said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Increase in rate of use does not mean more magically appears to replace it. If I drive faster, i burn more gas. All that means is I run out faster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is anyone arguing that fossil fuel is a renewable resource?
> 
> No.
> 
> The arguement from the "Peak Oil" kooks has been, _for the past 30 years_, that any year now, fossil fuels will suddenly disappear.
> 
> And every year for the past 30 years, they've been proven to be kooks, and they all agree that "the SKY ISN'T FALLING....._YET!_ but that if you wait another 5 years, just wait, _AGAIN_, their predictions will eventually come true."
> 
> Despite being wrong, over and over again, they love playing chicken-little.
> 
> Its a symptom of attention whoring (younger generations have never heard the 30-year-old stale tale, and university professors hate to change their lectures), and severe symptoms of mental illness that manifests itself in all OCD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *30 years hell, try at least 91 years.!!!*
Click to expand...


They're mentally ill.



No reason to rub their faces in it.


----------



## Big Fitz

uscitizen said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the USA exports over 1.5 million bbls oil daily.  That means what?
> 
> 
> 
> I seem to recall one of the chicken little cult reminding me most of that was in specialty oil products like fuel and solvents, not fuel.
> 
> Lots of WD-40.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep I checked back and most of it is refined products but not including WD40 level of finished products.  However we do export crude from CA and Alaska.
> And we import far more oil derivitives than we export.
> Most of our imported gasoline is from european countries.  go figure, those socialist countries can produce it cheap enough for us to import and resell it here?
Click to expand...

And we're talking European OWNED wells.  There's not many wells in the Netherlands (which is where Shell is based IIRC).  BP still has lots of north sea rigs at least, but it's not like there is a well in Devonshire.

And if you look at the graphs, Mexico and Canada export the most oil of all sources to us.  Gotta love them tar sands.


----------



## JBeukema

Samson said:


> The arguement from the "Peak Oil" kooks has been, _for the past 30 years_, that any year now, fossil fuels will suddenly disappear.




nice strawman


----------



## JiggsCasey

Samson said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Increase in rate of use does not mean more magically appears to replace it. If I drive faster, i burn more gas. All that means is I run out faster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is anyone arguing that fossil fuel is a renewable resource?
> 
> No.
> 
> The arguement from the "Peak Oil" kooks has been, _for the past 30 years_, that any year now, fossil fuels will suddenly disappear.
> 
> And every year for the past 30 years, they've been proven to be kooks, and they all agree that "the SKY ISN'T FALLING....._YET!_ but that if you wait another 5 years, just wait, _AGAIN_, their predictions will eventually come true."
> 
> Despite being wrong, over and over again, they love playing chicken-little.
> 
> Its a symptom of attention whoring (younger generations have never heard the 30-year-old stale tale, and university professors hate to change their lectures), and severe symptoms of mental illness that manifests itself in all OCD.
Click to expand...


Yes, you used this tired premise months ago, and then you had to bail when it was shown to be complete bunk. Conflate much? Tool.

But, no matter. You're obviously much smarter than the "kooks" at IEA, the U.S. Dept. of Energy, Oxford Univ., the British and German governments, the Joint Chiefs, the CEO of Total, and on and on and on. You know better. Yet, somehow, you spend endless hours on a internet message board, where your "smarts" are best served. 

Coming up on 13 thousand posts? Holy bloviation, bat man.

They've always been correct about peak. Hubbert's model says peak always happens 40 years after peak discovery. That was the case for U.S. production, Mexican, North Sea, Indonesia, etc. etc. etc. Global peak discovery occured in the mid 1960s. Your straw man of what those "kooks" above assert isn't doing anything for your tired, Frank Drebbin-like, "nothing to see here" guess work.

When it comes to world energy, supply totals and consumption rates: You .... don't.... know... what.... you're.... talking.... about.  .... 

And you can't stand that fact, so you just act like a smarmy, condescending ass all the time, offering zero substance to back your hollow claims. 

Gluttonous flat-earthers like you are gonna fall the hardest, and that's what makes it all at least somewhat tolerable.


----------



## loosecannon

Samson said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pure speculation addled with premature optimism and self obsorbtion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This pretty much encompasses all speculation.
> 
> Point?
Click to expand...


You are of course correct and that was my point. We speculated about water on Mars and couldn't reach conclusive certainty until long after we landed a rover on the surface, some on this board still reject the idea that there is water on Mars.

And the article used to assert the presence of ethane on this moon is chock full of undermining qualifiers. 

We think there is ethane on this moon, we sure don't know it yet.


----------



## Samson

loosecannon said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pure speculation addled with premature optimism and self obsorbtion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This pretty much encompasses all speculation.
> 
> Point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are of course correct and that was my point. We speculated about water on Mars and couldn't reach conclusive certainty until long after we landed a rover on the surface, some on this board still reject the idea that there is water on Mars.
> 
> And the article used to assert the presence of ethane on this moon is chock full of undermining qualifiers.
> 
> We think there is ethane on this moon, we sure don't know it yet.
Click to expand...


Well, the problem with ethane on the moon is that it is (maybe) on the moon.

And if we haven't been able to build a new refinery in the USA in the past 60 years, I doubt anyone is going to put a reformer on the moon.


----------



## mdn2000

JiggsCasey said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Increase in rate of use does not mean more magically appears to replace it. If I drive faster, i burn more gas. All that means is I run out faster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is anyone arguing that fossil fuel is a renewable resource?
> 
> No.
> 
> The arguement from the "Peak Oil" kooks has been, _for the past 30 years_, that any year now, fossil fuels will suddenly disappear.
> 
> And every year for the past 30 years, they've been proven to be kooks, and they all agree that "the SKY ISN'T FALLING....._YET!_ but that if you wait another 5 years, just wait, _AGAIN_, their predictions will eventually come true."
> 
> Despite being wrong, over and over again, they love playing chicken-little.
> 
> Its a symptom of attention whoring (younger generations have never heard the 30-year-old stale tale, and university professors hate to change their lectures), and severe symptoms of mental illness that manifests itself in all OCD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you used this tired premise months ago, and then you had to bail when it was shown to be complete bunk. Conflate much? Tool.
> 
> But, no matter. You're obviously much smarter than the "kooks" at IEA, the U.S. Dept. of Energy, Oxford Univ., the British and German governments, the Joint Chiefs, the CEO of Total, and on and on and on. You know better. Yet, somehow, you spend endless hours on a internet message board, where your "smarts" are best served.
> 
> Coming up on 13 thousand posts? Holy bloviation, bat man.
> 
> They've always been correct about peak. Hubbert's model says peak always happens 40 years after peak discovery. That was the case for U.S. production, Mexican, North Sea, Indonesia, etc. etc. etc. Global peak discovery occured in the mid 1960s. Your straw man of what those "kooks" above assert isn't doing anything for your tired, Frank Drebbin-like, "nothing to see here" guess work.
> 
> When it comes to world energy, supply totals and consumption rates: You .... don't.... know... what.... you're.... talking.... about.  ....
> 
> And you can't stand that fact, so you just act like a smarmy, condescending ass all the time, offering zero substance to back your hollow claims.
> 
> Gluttonous flat-earthers like you are gonna fall the hardest, and that's what makes it all at least somewhat tolerable.
Click to expand...


Funny, everyone you mention stands to profit if they are to be believed. Imagine, Total, oil company right, wants the public to believe we are at the peak, production, supply, known reserves, either way as long as people believe Total's claim, the price per barrel of oil will be perceived as of greater value.

How about that BP well in the gulf, so much damned oil it blew up and could hardly be contained. 

I wonder how much longer this peak will last, most likely hundreds of thousands of years.


----------



## Samson

JiggsCasey said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> Increase in rate of use does not mean more magically appears to replace it. If I drive faster, i burn more gas. All that means is I run out faster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is anyone arguing that fossil fuel is a renewable resource?
> 
> No.
> 
> The arguement from the "Peak Oil" kooks has been, _for the past 30 years_, that any year now, fossil fuels will suddenly disappear.
> 
> And every year for the past 30 years, they've been proven to be kooks, and they all agree that "the SKY ISN'T FALLING....._YET!_ but that if you wait another 5 years, just wait, _AGAIN_, their predictions will eventually come true."
> 
> Despite being wrong, over and over again, they love playing chicken-little.
> 
> Its a symptom of attention whoring (younger generations have never heard the 30-year-old stale tale, and university professors hate to change their lectures), and severe symptoms of mental illness that manifests itself in all OCD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you used this tired premise months ago, and then you had to bail when it was shown to be complete bunk. Conflate much? Tool.
Click to expand...


The only Tired Premise is that of "Peak Oil."

But continue blithering away, if it amuses you.


----------



## Samson

mdn2000 said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is anyone arguing that fossil fuel is a renewable resource?
> 
> No.
> 
> The arguement from the "Peak Oil" kooks has been, _for the past 30 years_, that any year now, fossil fuels will suddenly disappear.
> 
> And every year for the past 30 years, they've been proven to be kooks, and they all agree that "the SKY ISN'T FALLING....._YET!_ but that if you wait another 5 years, just wait, _AGAIN_, their predictions will eventually come true."
> 
> Despite being wrong, over and over again, they love playing chicken-little.
> 
> Its a symptom of attention whoring (younger generations have never heard the 30-year-old stale tale, and university professors hate to change their lectures), and severe symptoms of mental illness that manifests itself in all OCD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you used this tired premise months ago, and then you had to bail when it was shown to be complete bunk. Conflate much? Tool.
> 
> But, no matter. You're obviously much smarter than the "kooks" at IEA, the U.S. Dept. of Energy, Oxford Univ., the British and German governments, the Joint Chiefs, the CEO of Total, and on and on and on. You know better. Yet, somehow, you spend endless hours on a internet message board, where your "smarts" are best served.
> 
> Coming up on 13 thousand posts? Holy bloviation, bat man.
> 
> They've always been correct about peak. Hubbert's model says peak always happens 40 years after peak discovery. That was the case for U.S. production, Mexican, North Sea, Indonesia, etc. etc. etc. Global peak discovery occured in the mid 1960s. Your straw man of what those "kooks" above assert isn't doing anything for your tired, Frank Drebbin-like, "nothing to see here" guess work.
> 
> When it comes to world energy, supply totals and consumption rates: You .... don't.... know... what.... you're.... talking.... about.  ....
> 
> And you can't stand that fact, so you just act like a smarmy, condescending ass all the time, offering zero substance to back your hollow claims.
> 
> Gluttonous flat-earthers like you are gonna fall the hardest, and that's what makes it all at least somewhat tolerable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, everyone you mention stands to profit if they are to be believed. Imagine, Total, oil company right, wants the public to believe we are at the peak, production, supply, known reserves, either way as long as people believe Total's claim, the price per barrel of oil will be perceived as of greater value.
> 
> How about that BP well in the gulf, so much damned oil it blew up and could hardly be contained.
> 
> I wonder how much longer this peak will last, most likely hundreds of thousands of years.
Click to expand...


I hope not.

The Oil Peakers will need to start preserving their heads in suspended animation so that they can re-emerge waving their Master's Thesis with which they impressed their Sociology Professor in 1985.


----------



## loosecannon

Samson said:


> The only Tired Premise is that of "Peak Oil."
> 
> But continue blithering away, if it amuses you.



Get real, it is a hard and fast certainty that if humans keep consuming oil in vast quantities, but especially in exponentially increasing quantities, that peak oil will occur. 

Same with peak coal and peak tar sands and peak copper, peak rare earth minerals, peak uranium, etc, etc. 

It is mathematically impossible to be otherwise. 

The resource pool is finite, our consumption curve is tending toward the infinite, do the math.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

The obvious point about the ethane lake on Titan is that it is abiotic, that is, is did not require any "Fossil" to make-- and Earth is no different.


----------



## Big Fitz

> The only Tired Premise is that of "Peak Oil."
> 
> But continue blithering away, if it amuses you.



After 40 years later, and dozens of deadlines of running out of oil have been passed...

and people like jiggles STILL believe this fantasy is imminent and nothing can be done to slow it down, change it's course or save us unless we give up on the idea of a scientific reasoned western civilization.


----------



## Samson

loosecannon said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only Tired Premise is that of "Peak Oil."
> 
> But continue blithering away, if it amuses you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get real, it is a hard and fast certainty that if humans keep consuming oil in vast quantities, but especially in exponentially increasing quantities, that peak oil will occur.
> 
> Same with peak coal and peak tar sands and peak copper, peak rare earth minerals, peak uranium, etc, etc.
> 
> It is mathematically impossible to be otherwise.
> 
> The resource pool is finite, our consumption curve is tending toward the infinite, do the math.
Click to expand...


"Mathematically Impossible?"

REALLY? I did not know that every parameter had been identified to construct a perfect mathematical model? Where is it? If it exists, then you should be able to predict the price of oil tomorrow: What will it be?

I AM aware that "social science" loves to justify themselves by borrowing from the physical sciences. Most of the absurdity of "Peak Oil" derived from "exponentially increasing equations" finds justification in SOME physical science models. It works well enough, unless you actually know something about math.  However, a little knowledge is dangerous.

Part parabolic equation could be said to be linear.


----------



## Samson

Big Fitz said:


> The only Tired Premise is that of "Peak Oil."
> 
> But continue blithering away, if it amuses you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After 40 years later, and dozens of deadlines of running out of oil have been passed...
> 
> and people like jiggles STILL believe this fantasy is imminent and nothing can be done to slow it down, change it's course or save us unless we give up on the idea of a scientific reasoned western civilization.
Click to expand...




Please, you'll ruin Jiggs justification for being medicated.

I'm sure he wrote a term paper for a teacher, or professor, who was one of many wild-eyed libs back in the 60-70's. He became the teacher's pet. A _very close_ relationship developed that he can only reanimate through his Obsessive Compulsion about "Peak Oil" which has now become a serious disorder.


----------



## Big Fitz

Samson said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only Tired Premise is that of "Peak Oil."
> 
> But continue blithering away, if it amuses you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After 40 years later, and dozens of deadlines of running out of oil have been passed...
> 
> and people like jiggles STILL believe this fantasy is imminent and nothing can be done to slow it down, change it's course or save us unless we give up on the idea of a scientific reasoned western civilization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please, you'll ruin Jiggs justification for being medicated.
> 
> I'm sure he wrote a term paper for a teacher, or professor, who was one of many wild-eyed libs back in the 60-70's. He became the teacher's pet. A _very close_ relationship developed that he can only reanimate through his Obsessive Compulsion about "Peak Oil" which has now become a serious disorder.
Click to expand...

Or it's an LSD flashback from all those days with Abby Hoffmann and the Yippies getting extra-conscious and understanding the deeper meanings of the universe while proliferating anarchy for the sake of socialism.


----------



## Mr. H.

loosecannon said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only Tired Premise is that of "Peak Oil."
> 
> But continue blithering away, if it amuses you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get real, it is a hard and fast certainty that if humans keep consuming oil in vast quantities, but especially in exponentially increasing quantities, that peak oil will occur.
> 
> Same with peak coal and peak tar sands and peak copper, peak rare earth minerals, peak uranium, etc, etc.
> 
> It is mathematically impossible to be otherwise.
> 
> The resource pool is finite, our consumption curve is tending toward the infinite, do the math.
Click to expand...


Don't forget...


...peak hour. 

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


----------



## JiggsCasey

mdn2000 said:


> Funny, everyone you mention stands to profit if they are to be believed. Imagine, Total, oil company right, wants the public to believe we are at the peak, production, supply, known reserves, either way as long as people believe Total's claim, the price per barrel of oil will be perceived as of greater value.



Exxon and Chevron denies it. So there goes that premise that Big Oil wants it.



mdn2000 said:


> How about that BP well in the gulf, so much damned oil it blew up and could hardly be contained.



Emptiness. The Macondo Prospect held 55 million barrels, total. That's enough energy to get us through about 2/3 of a day at current consumption rates. Hardly proof of "plenty". 

Do better.



mdn2000 said:


> I wonder how much longer this peak will last, most likely hundreds of thousands of years.



Peak is already here. Terminal decline will begin by roughly 2015. Evidenced by the rising price of fuel today, the price of food, the geopolitical climate and the geological data which shows that new discoveries are not keeping up with dying capacity.

As for your allies here relying on personal ridicule, and utterly unable to counter the data (that assclown Samson foremost among them), that's fine. Keep your focus on me, and keep ducking the reality of the global energy crisis that is on our doorstep. You all represent the kinds of people in power who are the real doomers, stalling progress towards acknowledging this reality, and stalling from ever doing anything about it.

You'll learn, when your grocery bill doubles and triples within a few years. And/Or global trade war breaks out.

For all your posturing and arrogant ignorance, tell us then, how these former petrol geologists and Big Oil CEOs are somehow wrong (you won't, because you can't):

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

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


----------



## Samson

JiggsCasey said:


> Peak is already here. Terminal decline will begin by roughly 2015. Evidenced by the rising price of fuel today, the price of food, the geopolitical climate and the geological data which shows that new discoveries are not keeping up with dying capacity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for your allies here relying on personal ridicule, and utterly unable to counter the data (that assclown Samson foremost among them), that's fine. Keep your focus on me, and keep ducking the reality of the global energy crisis that is on our doorstep. You all represent the kinds of people in power who are the real doomers, stalling progress towards acknowledging this reality, and ever doing anything about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll learn, when your grocery bill doubles and triples within a few years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For all your posturing and arrogant ignorance, tell us then, how these former petrol geologists and Big Oil CEOs are somehow wrong (you won't, because you can't):






They are wrong because they cannot predict the future, just like they've been wrong for the past 30 (90) years. They have no idea if oil will "Peak" and they certainly don't know when.

The ONLY thing they know is that fossil fuels are NOT a renewable resource: 

Who disagrees with this premise? Can you cite ANYONE? 

No, because it is obvious.

Unfortunately for you, this simple fact must be embellished with fictional catastophic consequences, otherwise, you would be even more of a complete bore than you already are. 

Will there be rioting in the streets? The Peak Oilist replies, "OF COURSE, PAY ATTENTION TO ME, ME, ME!!!!" Sociology professors stand in front of classrooms full of morons like Jiggs, who are enraptured by the gory descriptions of global civil unrest, ignoring all the while that this picture is exactly opposed to anything that would benefit ExxonMobil's interests.


----------



## uscitizen

The US has already passed it's peak refining capacity.
We import refined petro products from european countries and other places.


----------



## mdn2000

JiggsCasey said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know my article lacked what you pointed out earlier, I expected this response and have no retort.
> 
> I understand the failings of links and articles to prove points.
> 
> Still, its a fact Brazil has become an exporter of oil.
> 
> What does the BP disaster teach us about peak oil, that there are known reserves of such great magnitude its extremely dangerous to tap said oil reserve.
> 
> Anyhow, I agree my articles do not prove a point, I can say the last four years of going to Brazil I have seen offshore oil platforms being built and super-tankers converted to offshore oil processing platforms, as built by Halliburton, which reminds me I have met Halliburton engineers in Brazil as well as dozens of platform workers.
> 
> Make no mistake, the oil industry in Brazil is growing, and not by a little bit, will they pass Saudi Arabia or Venezuela, I dont think so, but they are the experts at finding deep oil offshore.
> 
> New discoveries in Brazil, accounted for in the Peak Oil theory, without googling, I say no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you create a thread titled "discoveres dispel peak is a myth" and then concede that it doesn't show that at all.
> 
> Once again, of course there are going to be discoveries here and there. Tiny discoveries compared to what we used to find. Irrelevant finds, up against ever-increasing demand. The point is, as confirmed by the USGS and the IEA, is that new discoveries are not keeping up with existing dying capacity.... and haven't for 20+ years.
Click to expand...


I can see how your confused you read all I posted and think I conceded. Irony, sarcasm right over your head. Or is it the links I dismiss as nonsense which you desperately cling to as conceding.

USGS, government, same government that did not see the financial collapse coming. You trust the government. This is the problem with Libels, always trusting the government, Bush is big oil, Bush was in the White House, Bush went along with peak oil, Bush is oil and a liar, worst president ever, except on this one thing.

20 years we have not kept up, thats a big joke, yes we run out of gas all the time, not.


----------



## uscitizen

Anyone ever think that one reason that big oil might want to dispel the "myth" of peak oil is to keep us from pushing harder for alternatives?


----------



## mdn2000

JiggsCasey said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, everyone you mention stands to profit if they are to be believed. Imagine, Total, oil company right, wants the public to believe we are at the peak, production, supply, known reserves, either way as long as people believe Total's claim, the price per barrel of oil will be perceived as of greater value.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exxon and Chevron denies it. So there goes that premise that Big Oil wants it.
> 
> 
> 
> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about that BP well in the gulf, so much damned oil it blew up and could hardly be contained.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emptiness. The Macondo Prospect held 55 million barrels, total. That's enough energy to get us through about 2/3 of a day at current consumption rates. Hardly proof of "plenty".
> 
> Do better.
> 
> 
> 
> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how much longer this peak will last, most likely hundreds of thousands of years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Peak is already here. Terminal decline will begin by roughly 2015. Evidenced by the rising price of fuel today, the price of food, the geopolitical climate and the geological data which shows that new discoveries are not keeping up with dying capacity.
> 
> As for your allies here relying on personal ridicule, and utterly unable to counter the data (that assclown Samson foremost among them), that's fine. Keep your focus on me, and keep ducking the reality of the global energy crisis that is on our doorstep. You all represent the kinds of people in power who are the real doomers, stalling progress towards acknowledging this reality, and stalling from ever doing anything about it.
> 
> You'll learn, when your grocery bill doubles and triples within a few years. And/Or global trade war breaks out.
> 
> For all your posturing and arrogant ignorance, tell us then, how these former petrol geologists and Big Oil CEOs are somehow wrong (you won't, because you can't):
> 
> [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd7QGbNKxoQ[/ame]
> 
> [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUVY2qrEfd8[/ame]
Click to expand...




> Exxon and Chevron denies it. So there goes that premise that Big Oil wants it.



I am aware of this, when, where, was it an article. Further Chevron is building the world largest Solar Power plant, seems like you should of left Chevron out.



> Evidenced by the rising price of fuel today, the price of food



I will end here for now, I just had an epiphany, thanks for fixing me folks.

Yes, and I notice the expiration on my milk is passed, that was the day Global Warming went critical, correct.


----------



## Samson

uscitizen said:


> Anyone ever think that one reason that big oil might want to dispel the "myth" of peak oil is to keep us from pushing harder for alternatives?



Who do you think is developing the alternatives?

The "Alternative Energy Elves" at the North Pole?


----------



## uscitizen

Samson said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone ever think that one reason that big oil might want to dispel the "myth" of peak oil is to keep us from pushing harder for alternatives?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think is developing the alternatives?
> 
> The "Alternative Energy Elves" at the North Pole?
Click to expand...


who develops it?
In any case China will manufacture it.


----------



## Samson

uscitizen said:


> The US has already passed it's peak refining capacity.
> We import refined petro products from european countries and other places.



Really?

Where is the rioting in the streets?

The "Peak Refinists" must be terribly disappointed.


----------



## Samson

uscitizen said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone ever think that one reason that big oil might want to dispel the "myth" of peak oil is to keep us from pushing harder for alternatives?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think is developing the alternatives?
> 
> The "Alternative Energy Elves" at the North Pole?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> who develops it?
> In any case China will manufacture it.
Click to expand...



Yes, as we all know, China has always been famous for developing forward-thinking technolgy.



Well, at least they were 1000 years ago......since then they've fallen just a tad behind.


----------



## rdean

CrusaderFrank said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hydrocarbon lake finally confirmed on Titan | COSMOS magazine
> 
> "Cassini's visual and mapping instrument observed a lake &#8211; Ontario Lacus &#8211; in Titan's south polar region during a close Cassini flyby in December 2007. The lake is roughly 20,000 square kilometres in area, slightly larger than its namesake, North America's Lake Ontario. "
> 
> And it's a lake of "Fossil fuels"!  Eeek!  How did the velicoraptors get to Titan????
> 
> 
> 
> I get the distinct impression that you're an idiot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perfect clueless answer.  Please tell us why hydrocarbons on Earth are necessarily different from those on other planets and moons.
> 
> Take your time, be sure to include "velicoraptors pressure cooked over geological time" in your non-answer
Click to expand...


Hydrocarbon:

Any of numerous organic compounds that contain only carbon and hydrogen

Partial list of examples:

chlorobenzene - a colorless volatile flammable liquid with an almond odor that is made from chlorine and benzene; used as a solvent and in the production of phenol and DDT and other organic compounds
aromatic compound - a hydrocarbon containing one or more benzene rings that are characteristic of the benzene series of compounds
gasohol - a gasoline substitute consisting of 90% gasoline and 10% grain alcohol from corn
gasolene, gasoline, petrol, gas - a volatile flammable mixture of hydrocarbons (hexane and heptane and octane etc.) derived from petroleum; used mainly as a fuel in internal-combustion engines
coal oil, kerosene, kerosine, lamp oil - a flammable hydrocarbon oil used as fuel in lamps and heaters
organic compound - any compound of carbon and another element or a radical
aromatic hydrocarbon - a hydrocarbon that contains one or more benzene rings that are characteristic of the benzene series of organic compounds
indene - a colorless liquid hydrocarbon extracted from petroleum or coal tar and used in making synthetic resins
cymene - any of three isotopes of a colorless aromatic liquid hydrocarbon occurring in the volatile oil of cumin and thyme and used in the manufacture of synthetic resins
dioxin - any of several toxic or carcinogenic hydrocarbons that occur as impurities in herbicides
C2H6, ethane - a colorless odorless alkane gas used as fuel
bottled gas, liquefied petroleum gas - hydrocarbon gases, usually propane or butane, kept under pressure
bitumen - any of various naturally occurring impure mixtures of hydrocarbons
butadiene - a gaseous hydrocarbon C4H6; used in making synthetic rubbers
naphtha - any of various volatile flammable liquid hydrocarbon mixtures; used chiefly as solvents
naphthalene - a white crystalline strong-smelling hydrocarbon made from coal tar or petroleum and used in organic synthesis and as a fumigant in mothballs
pyrene - a pale yellow crystalline hydrocarbon C16H10 extracted from coal tar
octane - any isomeric saturated hydrocarbon found in petroleum and used as a fuel and solvent
gas oil - an oil formed through distillation of petroleum of intermediate boiling range and viscosity
terpene - an unsaturated hydrocarbon obtained from plants
provitamin - vitamin precursor; a substance that is converted into a vitamin in animal tissues


Some are "manmade", some found in nature, all are "Hydrocarbons".

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hydrocarbon


----------



## CrusaderFrank

rdean said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get the distinct impression that you're an idiot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perfect clueless answer.  Please tell us why hydrocarbons on Earth are necessarily different from those on other planets and moons.
> 
> Take your time, be sure to include "velicoraptors pressure cooked over geological time" in your non-answer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hydrocarbon:
> 
> Any of numerous organic compounds that contain only carbon and hydrogen
> 
> Partial list of examples:
> 
> chlorobenzene - a colorless volatile flammable liquid with an almond odor that is made from chlorine and benzene; used as a solvent and in the production of phenol and DDT and other organic compounds
> aromatic compound - a hydrocarbon containing one or more benzene rings that are characteristic of the benzene series of compounds
> gasohol - a gasoline substitute consisting of 90% gasoline and 10% grain alcohol from corn
> gasolene, gasoline, petrol, gas - a volatile flammable mixture of hydrocarbons (hexane and heptane and octane etc.) derived from petroleum; used mainly as a fuel in internal-combustion engines
> coal oil, kerosene, kerosine, lamp oil - a flammable hydrocarbon oil used as fuel in lamps and heaters
> organic compound - any compound of carbon and another element or a radical
> aromatic hydrocarbon - a hydrocarbon that contains one or more benzene rings that are characteristic of the benzene series of organic compounds
> indene - a colorless liquid hydrocarbon extracted from petroleum or coal tar and used in making synthetic resins
> cymene - any of three isotopes of a colorless aromatic liquid hydrocarbon occurring in the volatile oil of cumin and thyme and used in the manufacture of synthetic resins
> dioxin - any of several toxic or carcinogenic hydrocarbons that occur as impurities in herbicides
> C2H6, ethane - a colorless odorless alkane gas used as fuel
> bottled gas, liquefied petroleum gas - hydrocarbon gases, usually propane or butane, kept under pressure
> bitumen - any of various naturally occurring impure mixtures of hydrocarbons
> butadiene - a gaseous hydrocarbon C4H6; used in making synthetic rubbers
> naphtha - any of various volatile flammable liquid hydrocarbon mixtures; used chiefly as solvents
> naphthalene - a white crystalline strong-smelling hydrocarbon made from coal tar or petroleum and used in organic synthesis and as a fumigant in mothballs
> pyrene - a pale yellow crystalline hydrocarbon C16H10 extracted from coal tar
> octane - any isomeric saturated hydrocarbon found in petroleum and used as a fuel and solvent
> gas oil - an oil formed through distillation of petroleum of intermediate boiling range and viscosity
> terpene - an unsaturated hydrocarbon obtained from plants
> provitamin - vitamin precursor; a substance that is converted into a vitamin in animal tissues
> 
> 
> Some are "manmade", some found in nature, all are "Hydrocarbons".
> 
> hydrocarbon - definition of hydrocarbon by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
Click to expand...


I'm fairly certain this is way beyond your cognitive ability, but here goes, are you saying that Earth based ethane is different from that on Titan?  

Now go Google "Cognitive ability" and post something else off point.


----------



## rdean

CrusaderFrank said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perfect clueless answer.  Please tell us why hydrocarbons on Earth are necessarily different from those on other planets and moons.
> 
> Take your time, be sure to include "velicoraptors pressure cooked over geological time" in your non-answer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hydrocarbon:
> 
> Any of numerous organic compounds that contain only carbon and hydrogen
> 
> Partial list of examples:
> 
> chlorobenzene - a colorless volatile flammable liquid with an almond odor that is made from chlorine and benzene; used as a solvent and in the production of phenol and DDT and other organic compounds
> aromatic compound - a hydrocarbon containing one or more benzene rings that are characteristic of the benzene series of compounds
> gasohol - a gasoline substitute consisting of 90% gasoline and 10% grain alcohol from corn
> gasolene, gasoline, petrol, gas - a volatile flammable mixture of hydrocarbons (hexane and heptane and octane etc.) derived from petroleum; used mainly as a fuel in internal-combustion engines
> coal oil, kerosene, kerosine, lamp oil - a flammable hydrocarbon oil used as fuel in lamps and heaters
> organic compound - any compound of carbon and another element or a radical
> aromatic hydrocarbon - a hydrocarbon that contains one or more benzene rings that are characteristic of the benzene series of organic compounds
> indene - a colorless liquid hydrocarbon extracted from petroleum or coal tar and used in making synthetic resins
> cymene - any of three isotopes of a colorless aromatic liquid hydrocarbon occurring in the volatile oil of cumin and thyme and used in the manufacture of synthetic resins
> dioxin - any of several toxic or carcinogenic hydrocarbons that occur as impurities in herbicides
> C2H6, ethane - a colorless odorless alkane gas used as fuel
> bottled gas, liquefied petroleum gas - hydrocarbon gases, usually propane or butane, kept under pressure
> bitumen - any of various naturally occurring impure mixtures of hydrocarbons
> butadiene - a gaseous hydrocarbon C4H6; used in making synthetic rubbers
> naphtha - any of various volatile flammable liquid hydrocarbon mixtures; used chiefly as solvents
> naphthalene - a white crystalline strong-smelling hydrocarbon made from coal tar or petroleum and used in organic synthesis and as a fumigant in mothballs
> pyrene - a pale yellow crystalline hydrocarbon C16H10 extracted from coal tar
> octane - any isomeric saturated hydrocarbon found in petroleum and used as a fuel and solvent
> gas oil - an oil formed through distillation of petroleum of intermediate boiling range and viscosity
> terpene - an unsaturated hydrocarbon obtained from plants
> provitamin - vitamin precursor; a substance that is converted into a vitamin in animal tissues
> 
> 
> Some are "manmade", some found in nature, all are "Hydrocarbons".
> 
> hydrocarbon - definition of hydrocarbon by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm fairly certain this is way beyond your cognitive ability, but here goes, are you saying that Earth based ethane is different from that on Titan?
> 
> Now go Google "Cognitive ability" and post something else off point.
Click to expand...


Hydrogen and carbon are found all over the solar system.  I presented a partial list of known hydrocarbons.  Not every hydrocarbon found on earth is necessarily found on one of the moons of Saturn.  I thought that was obvious and didn't need further explanation.  Sorry, I was obviously mistaken.


----------



## loosecannon

CrusaderFrank said:


> The obvious point about the ethane lake on Titan is that it is abiotic, that is, is did not require any "Fossil" to make-- and Earth is no different.



Earth to Saturnians: no actually Earth IS different!


----------



## loosecannon

Samson said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only Tired Premise is that of "Peak Oil."
> 
> But continue blithering away, if it amuses you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get real, it is a hard and fast certainty that if humans keep consuming oil in vast quantities, but especially in exponentially increasing quantities, that peak oil will occur.
> 
> Same with peak coal and peak tar sands and peak copper, peak rare earth minerals, peak uranium, etc, etc.
> 
> It is mathematically impossible to be otherwise.
> 
> The resource pool is finite, our consumption curve is tending toward the infinite, do the math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Mathematically Impossible?"
> 
> REALLY? I did not know that every parameter had been identified to construct a perfect mathematical model? Where is it? If it exists, then you should be able to predict the price of oil tomorrow: What will it be?
> 
> I AM aware that "social science" loves to justify themselves by borrowing from the physical sciences. Most of the absurdity of "Peak Oil" derived from "exponentially increasing equations" finds justification in SOME physical science models. It works well enough, unless you actually know something about math.  However, a little knowledge is dangerous.
> 
> Part parabolic equation could be said to be linear.
Click to expand...


that was gibberish.

When consumption of a finite resource escalates exponentially the resource will eventually be consumed.

DUH! 

Any argument to the contrary is futile.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

rdean said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hydrocarbon:
> 
> Any of numerous organic compounds that contain only carbon and hydrogen
> 
> Partial list of examples:
> 
> chlorobenzene - a colorless volatile flammable liquid with an almond odor that is made from chlorine and benzene; used as a solvent and in the production of phenol and DDT and other organic compounds
> aromatic compound - a hydrocarbon containing one or more benzene rings that are characteristic of the benzene series of compounds
> gasohol - a gasoline substitute consisting of 90% gasoline and 10% grain alcohol from corn
> gasolene, gasoline, petrol, gas - a volatile flammable mixture of hydrocarbons (hexane and heptane and octane etc.) derived from petroleum; used mainly as a fuel in internal-combustion engines
> coal oil, kerosene, kerosine, lamp oil - a flammable hydrocarbon oil used as fuel in lamps and heaters
> organic compound - any compound of carbon and another element or a radical
> aromatic hydrocarbon - a hydrocarbon that contains one or more benzene rings that are characteristic of the benzene series of organic compounds
> indene - a colorless liquid hydrocarbon extracted from petroleum or coal tar and used in making synthetic resins
> cymene - any of three isotopes of a colorless aromatic liquid hydrocarbon occurring in the volatile oil of cumin and thyme and used in the manufacture of synthetic resins
> dioxin - any of several toxic or carcinogenic hydrocarbons that occur as impurities in herbicides
> C2H6, ethane - a colorless odorless alkane gas used as fuel
> bottled gas, liquefied petroleum gas - hydrocarbon gases, usually propane or butane, kept under pressure
> bitumen - any of various naturally occurring impure mixtures of hydrocarbons
> butadiene - a gaseous hydrocarbon C4H6; used in making synthetic rubbers
> naphtha - any of various volatile flammable liquid hydrocarbon mixtures; used chiefly as solvents
> naphthalene - a white crystalline strong-smelling hydrocarbon made from coal tar or petroleum and used in organic synthesis and as a fumigant in mothballs
> pyrene - a pale yellow crystalline hydrocarbon C16H10 extracted from coal tar
> octane - any isomeric saturated hydrocarbon found in petroleum and used as a fuel and solvent
> gas oil - an oil formed through distillation of petroleum of intermediate boiling range and viscosity
> terpene - an unsaturated hydrocarbon obtained from plants
> provitamin - vitamin precursor; a substance that is converted into a vitamin in animal tissues
> 
> 
> Some are "manmade", some found in nature, all are "Hydrocarbons".
> 
> hydrocarbon - definition of hydrocarbon by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm fairly certain this is way beyond your cognitive ability, but here goes, are you saying that Earth based ethane is different from that on Titan?
> 
> Now go Google "Cognitive ability" and post something else off point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hydrogen and carbon are found all over the solar system.  I presented a partial list of known hydrocarbons.  Not every hydrocarbon found on earth is necessarily found on one of the moons of Saturn.  I thought that was obvious and didn't need further explanation.  Sorry, I was obviously mistaken.
Click to expand...


Well there's no surprise in your being obviously mistaken, that's like breathing.

Did you think Republicans exported jobs to Titan where they synthesize complex hydrocarbon molecules?

There is ethane in Titan, yet on Earth it's considered a fossil fuel. That's the point. 

Google away


----------



## loosecannon

CrusaderFrank said:


> There is ethane in Titan, yet on Earth it's considered a fossil fuel. That's the point.
> 
> Google away



But it isn't much of a point.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

loosecannon said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is ethane in Titan, yet on Earth it's considered a fossil fuel. That's the point.
> 
> Google away
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it isn't much of a point.
Click to expand...


So is Earth the one and only place in the solar system than needs dead dinosaurs to make ethane, methane, et al.?


----------



## rdean

CrusaderFrank said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is ethane in Titan, *yet on Earth it's considered a fossil fuel.* That's the point.
> 
> Google away
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it isn't much of a point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So is Earth the one and only place in the solar system than needs dead dinosaurs to make ethane, methane, et al.?
Click to expand...


There is also carbon dioxide on Titan.  What does that mean?

In 1996, ethane was detected in Comet Hyakutake,[6] and it has since been detected in some other comets. The existence of ethane in these distant solar system bodies may implicate ethane as a primordial component of the solar nebula from which the sun and planets are believed to have formed.

Ethane - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A "component" of fossil fuel is NOT considered "fossil fuel".  Do you understand the difference?  

Def of com·po·nent:
Any of the minimum number of substances required to specify completely the composition of all phases of a chemical system.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

rdean said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it isn't much of a point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is Earth the one and only place in the solar system than needs dead dinosaurs to make ethane, methane, et al.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is also carbon dioxide on Titan.  What does that mean?
> 
> In 1996, ethane was detected in Comet Hyakutake,[6] and it has since been detected in some other comets. The existence of ethane in these distant solar system bodies may implicate ethane as a primordial component of the solar nebula from which the sun and planets are believed to have formed.
> 
> Ethane - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> A "component" of fossil fuel is NOT considered "fossil fuel".  Do you understand the difference?
> 
> Def of com·po·nent:
> Any of the minimum number of substances required to specify completely the composition of all phases of a chemical system.
Click to expand...


Let's stay with stuff you know, like...er, um.  Hmmm.  Well. 

Give me a minute.

I know you just like to Google stuff and post it here like some trained chimp, but can you tell me what CO2 on a comet has to do with ethane on Titan and why you think CO2 is a fossil fuel "component"?


----------



## loosecannon

CrusaderFrank said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is ethane in Titan, yet on Earth it's considered a fossil fuel. That's the point.
> 
> Google away
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it isn't much of a point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So is Earth the one and only place in the solar system than needs dead dinosaurs to make ethane, methane, et al.?
Click to expand...


No, dead plants will do, dead salamanders are fine, dead butterflies.

Earth made methane without biomatter too billions of years ago. So do comets.You only need biomatter to make complex hydrocarbons some of which have millions of atoms in a single molecule, like buckyballs. And you need lots of heat and pressure and a lotta time. And you need some mechanism to trap these materials within the crust to process them.

But if you are asserting that crazy self replenishing oil theory, abiotic oil, then you have screws loose. Just sayin.


----------



## psikeyhackr

It may postpone Peak Oil, more likely it will only slow the decline, but the fact of the matter is that since the oil in the planet must be finite Peak Oil is a logical inevitability.  It is only a question of WHEN!

The bizarre thing is that people can deny the logically obvious.

psik


----------



## KissMy

loosecannon said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it isn't much of a point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is Earth the one and only place in the solar system than needs dead dinosaurs to make ethane, methane, et al.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, dead plants will do, dead salamanders are fine, dead butterflies.
> 
> Earth made methane without biomatter too billions of years ago. So do comets.You only need biomatter to make complex hydrocarbons some of which have millions of atoms in a single molecule, like buckyballs. And you need lots of heat and pressure and a lotta time. And you need some mechanism to trap these materials within the crust to process them.
> 
> But if you are asserting that crazy self replenishing oil theory, abiotic oil, then you have screws loose. Just sayin.
Click to expand...


So just how big of a pile of plants, dinos & other animals did it take to create the Ghawar oil field in Saudi Arabia?

How was it possible to get that many dinosaurs to pile up so high & deep in that spot?

Why has Ghawar already produced far more oil than was assessed to be recoverable & still producing big-time?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

loosecannon said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it isn't much of a point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is Earth the one and only place in the solar system than needs dead dinosaurs to make ethane, methane, et al.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, dead plants will do, dead salamanders are fine, dead butterflies.
> 
> Earth made methane without biomatter too billions of years ago. So do comets.You only need biomatter to make complex hydrocarbons some of which have millions of atoms in a single molecule, like buckyballs. And you need lots of heat and pressure and a lotta time. And you need some mechanism to trap these materials within the crust to process them.
> 
> But if you are asserting that crazy self replenishing oil theory, abiotic oil, then you have screws loose. Just sayin.
Click to expand...


LOL

This is funny.

Methane CH4, is a "Fossil fuel" on Earth but guess what? On Titan and everywhere else it's still CH4 and NOT a fossil fuel.

You got the heat and pressure part right but how much time do you think it take and --- why? lol

Your "Millions of atom" molecules were made in a lab that the Republicans must have exported to Titan.


----------



## mdn2000

rdean said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it isn't much of a point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is Earth the one and only place in the solar system than needs dead dinosaurs to make ethane, methane, et al.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is also carbon dioxide on Titan.  What does that mean?
> 
> In 1996, ethane was detected in Comet Hyakutake,[6] and it has since been detected in some other comets. The existence of ethane in these distant solar system bodies may implicate ethane as a primordial component of the solar nebula from which the sun and planets are believed to have formed.
> 
> Ethane - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> A "component" of fossil fuel is NOT considered "fossil fuel".  Do you understand the difference?
> 
> Def of com·po·nent:
> Any of the minimum number of substances required to specify completely the composition of all phases of a chemical system.
Click to expand...


I am glad you asked, What carbon dioxide on the moon of Titan means, being that its -290 Fahrenheit, that CO2 caused global cooling, or in Saturn's case, moon cooling.


----------



## Samson

loosecannon said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get real, it is a hard and fast certainty that if humans keep consuming oil in vast quantities, but especially in exponentially increasing quantities, that peak oil will occur.
> 
> Same with peak coal and peak tar sands and peak copper, peak rare earth minerals, peak uranium, etc, etc.
> 
> It is mathematically impossible to be otherwise.
> 
> The resource pool is finite, our consumption curve is tending toward the infinite, do the math.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Mathematically Impossible?"
> 
> REALLY? I did not know that every parameter had been identified to construct a perfect mathematical model? Where is it? If it exists, then you should be able to predict the price of oil tomorrow: What will it be?
> 
> I AM aware that "social science" loves to justify themselves by borrowing from the physical sciences. Most of the absurdity of "Peak Oil" derived from "exponentially increasing equations" finds justification in SOME physical science models. It works well enough, unless you actually know something about math.  However, a little knowledge is dangerous.
> 
> Part parabolic equation could be said to be linear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that was gibberish.
> 
> When consumption of a finite resource escalates exponentially the resource will eventually be consumed.
> 
> DUH!
> 
> Any argument to the contrary is futile.
Click to expand...


NO ONE IS SAYING IT WILL LAST FOREVER.

Obviously you are not very well aquainted with the whole "Peak Oilist Arguement" = There will be no plateau, there will be a sudden, catastrophic dramatic decline in the availability of global fossil fuels.

ONLY because the graph of consuption vs time appears to be "exponential."

This works well for most sociology students who have never taken more math than College Algebra, but for anyone who has taken Calculus, it is absurd. 

Perhaps a simple illustration will suffice:


----------



## JiggsCasey

Samson said:


> NO ONE IS SAYING IT WILL LAST FOREVER.
> 
> Obviously you are not very well aquainted with the whole "Peak Oilist Arguement" = There will be no plateau, there will be a sudden, catastrophic dramatic decline in the availability of global fossil fuels.



What an unrivaled douche.

You can't even represent our argument accurately. Anyone who advocates peak understands the plateau (which we are currently on).... No one said anything about any "sudden, catastrophic decline" in supply, liar. The supply decline will be slow, while the economic ramifications will magnify.

The only thing sudden would be the ramifications of war (trade war, or military war) in advance of global financial panic, the risk of which grows with every passing month.

I'll address the rest of your emptiness later. Suffice to say, you can't counter the data. All you have are smarmy cartoons and irrelevant anecdotes. You're out of your league on this topic, evidenced months ago.

The difference between 40 years ago and today is that 40 years ago, "doomers" were incorrectly interpreting geologists data. Today, geologists themselves are telling us the ramifications of their data. Stop lying about a subject you obviously have no idea about.

You come off sounding like a hope-based creationist. And an arrogant ass.


----------



## uscitizen

much of geology is theory.


----------



## Samson

JiggsCasey said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO ONE IS SAYING IT WILL LAST FOREVER.
> 
> Obviously you are not very well aquainted with the whole "Peak Oilist Arguement" = There will be no plateau, there will be a sudden, catastrophic dramatic decline in the availability of global fossil fuels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What an unrivaled douche.
> 
> You can't even represent our argument accurately. Anyone who advocates peak understands the plateau (which we are currently on).... No one said anything about any "sudden, catastrophic decline" in supply, liar. The supply decline will be slow, while the economic ramifications will magnify.
> 
> *The only thing sudden would be the ramifications of war*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (trade war, or military war)* in advance of global financial panic, the risk of which grows with every passing month*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll address the rest of your emptiness later. Suffice to say, you can't counter the data. All you have are smarmy cartoons and irrelevant anecdotes. You're out of your league on this topic, evidenced months ago.
> 
> The difference between 40 years ago and today is that 40 years ago, "doomers" were incorrectly interpreting geologists data. Today, geologists themselves are telling us the ramifications of their data.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop lying about a subject you obviously have no idea about.
> 
> You come off sounding like a hope-based creationist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And an arrogant ass.
Click to expand...



War, Financial Panic!!!

For Christssakes, pull yourself together, dude.


----------



## Mr. H.

After 4 pots of coffee and 36 hours of nonstop research, Tesla inadvertently invents the pee coil.


----------



## loosecannon

CrusaderFrank said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> So is Earth the one and only place in the solar system than needs dead dinosaurs to make ethane, methane, et al.?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, dead plants will do, dead salamanders are fine, dead butterflies.
> 
> Earth made methane without biomatter too billions of years ago. So do comets.You only need biomatter to make complex hydrocarbons some of which have millions of atoms in a single molecule, like buckyballs. And you need lots of heat and pressure and a lotta time. And you need some mechanism to trap these materials within the crust to process them.
> 
> But if you are asserting that crazy self replenishing oil theory, abiotic oil, then you have screws loose. Just sayin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> This is funny.
> 
> Methane CH4, is a "Fossil fuel" on Earth but guess what? On Titan and everywhere else it's still CH4 and NOT a fossil fuel.
> 
> You got the heat and pressure part right but how much time do you think it take and --- why? lol
> 
> Your "Millions of atom" molecules were made in a lab that the Republicans must have exported to Titan.
Click to expand...


They occur in petro chemicals



> By means of high-resoluton transmission electron microscopy, both C60 and C70 fullerenes have been found in a, carbon-rich Precambrian rock from Russia The fullerenes were confirmed by Fourier transform mass spectrometry with both laser desorption and thermal desorption/electron-capture methods to verify that the fullerenes were indeed present in the geological sample and were not generated by the laser ionization event. The mass spectra were measured under conditions sufficient to resolve the 13C/12C isotopic ratios for C60 and C70 and indicate that these ratios correspond to the normal range of isotopic values.
> 
> *
> o Received for publication 15 June 1992.
> o Accepted for publication 19 June 1992.



Fullerenes from the Geological Environment | Science/AAAS


----------



## loosecannon

KissMy said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> So is Earth the one and only place in the solar system than needs dead dinosaurs to make ethane, methane, et al.?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, dead plants will do, dead salamanders are fine, dead butterflies.
> 
> Earth made methane without biomatter too billions of years ago. So do comets.You only need biomatter to make complex hydrocarbons some of which have millions of atoms in a single molecule, like buckyballs. And you need lots of heat and pressure and a lotta time. And you need some mechanism to trap these materials within the crust to process them.
> 
> But if you are asserting that crazy self replenishing oil theory, abiotic oil, then you have screws loose. Just sayin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So just how big of a pile of plants, dinos & other animals did it take to create the Ghawar oil field in Saudi Arabia?
> 
> How was it possible to get that many dinosaurs to pile up so high & deep in that spot?
> 
> Why has Ghawar already produced far more oil than was assessed to be recoverable & still producing big-time?
Click to expand...


Have you ever heard about the carboniferous period?

Carboniferous - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JiggsCasey

Samson said:


> War, Financial Panic!!!
> 
> For Christssakes, pull yourself together, dude.



It's official. You have absolutely no grasp of what's going on in the world today, and instead insist on acting like a smarmy ass with a perpetual "nothing to see here" outlook on the symptoms all around us.

Read a newspaper.

U.S.-China trade war feared

Time: Is the world in a trade war?

U.S. Dollar Collapse Has Fueled Inflation Trade Mania

Arab states have launched secret moves with China, Russia and France to stop using the US currency for oil trading

Get a clue.


----------



## mdn2000

The peak oil theory is dead.

Occidental Petroleum's Path to Easy Oil - Forbes.com



> Now Occidental ( OXY - news - people ) is breaking ranks in another way, by upsetting the commonplace view that the days of "easy oil" in the U.S. are over. Last year Oxy announced a new find outside Bakersfield, in Kern County, Calif., which is shaping up to be the biggest onshore oil discovery the U.S. has seen in three decades. It likely holds more than 1 billion barrels of oil (and natural gas equivalents) that will be easy and cheap to extract





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


----------



## loosecannon

> It likely holds more than 1 billion barrels of oil



iow a 50 day supply for the US and enough to satisfy current global demand for 12.5 days.



underwhelming.



> shaping up to be the biggest onshore oil discovery the U.S. has seen in three decades



even more underwhelming that the biggest onshore find in decades is only enough to last 50 days..... or less than 1/2 of 1% of what we require to sustain our energy profile.


----------



## mdn2000

loosecannon said:


> It likely holds more than 1 billion barrels of oil
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iow a 50 day supply for the US and enough to satisfy current global demand for 12.5 days.
> 
> 
> 
> underwhelming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shaping up to be the biggest onshore oil discovery the U.S. has seen in three decades
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> even more underwhelming that the biggest onshore find in decades is only enough to last 50 days..... or less than 1/2 of 1% of what we require to sustain our energy profile.
Click to expand...


Nice way to twist reality.

The Kern oil fields have been producing oil since the last CENTURY. This new discovery will take decades to deplete. Thats right, this oil find will be producing oil for decades, as the Kern Oil Deposits have produced oil for over fifty years.

50 days, ha, ha, ha., only an asshole political hack would describe a supply of oil that has been productive decades as being useful for 50 days.


----------



## loosecannon

and only an imbecile would miss my point.

Despite the fact that the puny Kern oilfield may take decades to deplete, the total volume of oil it will produce over those decades only = what we consume in 50 days at present consumption rates of 20 million bbl/day. 

At least according to your article:



> It likely holds more than 1 billion barrels of oil



For the thinking impaired 1 x 10(9)/2 x 10(7) = 50. 

But it may be less than a 50 day supply as the article qualified it's assessment with the word "likely".

Likely is one of those maleable qualifiers: "it may be one billion (or it may be only 25,000)".


----------



## mdn2000

Producing oil for decades, Kern County is one of the richest oil fields in the USA. A fifty day supply yet it takes over fifty years to deplete. 

The newest find was a gusher, in an old oil field thought to be dwindling. That is the significance, not the amount. 

Still 50 days of oil takes 50 years to deplete, does not sound logical does it. There is no difference in intelligence between the average citizen and the average scientist, at least the citizen has the courage and ability to go out and work, many professors are so weak and devoid of brilliance they never leave the university, government parasites.

I Loosecannon is quoting a professor. How about a link Loosecannon, show us where you found your idea. Link to the expert so I can show its a professor or scientist working for the government at a university, I would bet this dumb ass professor is leeching off a university in California.

So lets wait and see if Loosecannon will link, after all, I did.


----------



## loosecannon

You are catastrophically stupid md20.

Your own link said 





> It likely holds more than 1 billion barrels of oil



While the US uses 20 million barrels of oil every single day. That is common knowledge, do you need a link to it?

1 billion divided by 20 million = 50 days of oil at our current consumption levels.

You can't possibly be so dumb as to not be capable of the math can you?



> U.S. Petroleum Consumption
> 18,771,000 barrels/day



Oil: Crude and Petroleum Products - Energy Explained, Your Guide To Understanding Energy

Well it's a recession we are using 10% less than we were a few years ago. So this discovery represents a 55 day supply for the US.


----------



## mdn2000

loosecannon said:


> You are catastrophically stupid md20.
> 
> Your own link said
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It likely holds more than 1 billion barrels of oil
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While the US uses 20 million barrels of oil every single day. That is common knowledge, do you need a link to it?
> 
> 1 billion divided by 20 million = 50 days of oil at our current consumption levels.
> 
> You can't possibly be so dumb as to not be capable of the math can you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Petroleum Consumption
> 18,771,000 barrels/day
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oil: Crude and Petroleum Products - Energy Explained, Your Guide To Understanding Energy
> 
> Well it's a recession we are using 10% less than we were a few years ago. So this discovery represents a 55 day supply for the US.
Click to expand...


Fifty days yet it produces for decades, fifty days yet the BP disaster lasted how long. 

We should all stop using oil today, right, we only have two months worth of oil left in the world, why bother drilling and exploring for more. I best start hording oil. 

You are an Oilphobic

I like that, MD20, mad dog 20/20. wish I would of thought of that.


----------



## KissMy

loosecannon said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So just how big of a pile of plants, dinos & other animals did it take to create the Ghawar oil field in Saudi Arabia?
> 
> How was it possible to get that many dinosaurs to pile up so high & deep in that spot?
> 
> Why has Ghawar already produced far more oil than was assessed to be recoverable & still producing big-time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever heard about the carboniferous period?
> 
> Carboniferous - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


All I know is geologist & Matt Simmons did not say the formation was made from dead animals or plants. They said it was made from "poop pellets", something like rabbit shit. That means it is a big pile of shit 175 miles long, 15 miles wide & 1,300 ft thick. I find this shit very hard to believe.


----------



## Mr. H.

Here's a story about a company that's entered into an agreement to build 4 (count 'em, four) drillships  at $600 million a pop. They've collected a non-refundable deposit of $100 million. They are to compliment the drillships already under construction. Regardless of the Peak Oil debate, somebody out there think's more oil is waiting to be found. 

_The ultra deepwater market has turned a corner and we believe this is the bottom of the newbuilding price cycle. We see strong demand for state of the art ultra deepwater drillships and are confident of customer demand for these drillships._

RIGZONE - Dryships Seeks 4 New Ultra-Deepwater Drillships for $2.4B


----------



## Samson

Mr. H. said:


> Here's a story about a company that's entered into an agreement to build 4 (count 'em, four) drillships  at $600 million a pop. They've collected a non-refundable deposit of $100 million. They are to compliment the drillships already under construction. Regardless of the Peak Oil debate, somebody out there think's more oil is waiting to be found.
> 
> _The ultra deepwater market has turned a corner and we believe this is the bottom of the newbuilding price cycle. We see strong demand for state of the art ultra deepwater drillships and are confident of customer demand for these drillships._
> 
> RIGZONE - Dryships Seeks 4 New Ultra-Deepwater Drillships for $2.4B



It must be part of the VAST BIG OIL CONSPIRACY to make us believe that fossil fuels will last forever.


----------



## editec

> Now Occidental ( OXY - news - people ) is breaking ranks in another way, by upsetting the commonplace view that the days of "easy oil" in the U.S. are over. Last year Oxy announced a new find outside Bakersfield, in Kern County, Calif., which is shaping up to be the biggest onshore oil discovery the U.S. has seen in three decades. It likely holds more than _1 billion barrels of oil_ (and natural gas equivalents) that will be easy and cheap to extract


 
Wow, sound like a lot, doesn't it?

_*That 1 billion barrels is about 14 DAYS worth of oil at the world's current consumption*_



*math?*

*1,000 million/70 million = 14.2857 days worth of oil.*

*So?*

*That's means peak oil is at best two weeks later than it was before this stike.*


----------



## Mr. H.

An extra 2 weeks huh? Maybe I'll take that Hawaiian vacation that I've been putting off.


----------



## Big Fitz

1.  We live in a finite universe.  Nothing can change that.
2.  Oil is a finite resource.  It will run out.
3.  We do not know accurately how much oil we do have in the world.
4.  Technology creates new ways to supply our energy needs
5.  We have always found technological solutions faster than we have run out of energy.


----------



## Samson

loosecannon said:


> It likely holds more than 1 billion barrels of oil
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iow a 50 day supply for the US and enough to satisfy current global demand for 12.5 days.
> 
> 
> 
> underwhelming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shaping up to be the biggest onshore oil discovery the U.S. has seen in three decades
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> even more underwhelming that the biggest onshore find in decades is only enough to last 50 days..... or less than 1/2 of 1% of what we require to sustain our energy profile.
Click to expand...


The point of the article was not to report on an oil find that could sustain worldwide oil demand for the next 200 years.

The point is that there are still quite viable sources of oil inside the USA, even within fields that have been "depleted."

This is not to say that fossil fuel is a inexaustable resource, but it does bring into question the doomsday predictions of "Peak Oil" conspiracy theorists that believe that some absurd extrapolation of a "exponential" model of oil consumption _must_ describe an apocolyptical societial future.


----------



## mdn2000

The Peak oil myth is nothing more than fear-mongering, oil deposits produce oil for decades, not days. If you are to believe the PeakOilPhobes, why are we still producing oil, a ten day supply should of ran out, lets say, at least ten days ago.


----------



## loosecannon

Samson said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It likely holds more than 1 billion barrels of oil
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iow a 50 day supply for the US and enough to satisfy current global demand for 12.5 days.
> 
> 
> 
> underwhelming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shaping up to be the biggest onshore oil discovery the U.S. has seen in three decades
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> even more underwhelming that the biggest onshore find in decades is only enough to last 50 days..... or less than 1/2 of 1% of what we require to sustain our energy profile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point of the article was not to report on an oil find that could sustain worldwide oil demand for the next 200 years.
> 
> The point is that there are still quite viable sources of oil inside the USA, even within fields that have been "depleted."
> 
> This is not to say that fossil fuel is a inexaustable resource, but it does bring into question the doomsday predictions of "Peak Oil" conspiracy theorists that believe that some absurd extrapolation of a "exponential" model of oil consumption _must_ describe an apocolyptical societial future.
Click to expand...


Samson, there is almost always recoverable oil within wells that have been closed and capped, or taken offline.

It's a cost vs benefits calculation made according to current prices.

A well is no longer sufficiently productive at 1972 prices so it gets capped in 1972. It isn't worth the costs to open it in 1990 at 1990 oil prices so it gets taken offline. Then in 2008 oil jumps to $147/bbl and it IS cost effe3ctive to run that well again, unfortunately the infrastructure that supports it needs modernization so it is prohibitively expensive to do so.

That oil remains in the ground forever, or until the price of oil reaches a premium so high as to justify full costs of developing the field from scratch.

Our oil extraction process is driven by ROI, not by maximum resource extraction. That causes us to strand a lot of oil in the ground never to be recovered.


----------



## loosecannon

Samson said:


> extrapolation of a "exponential" model of oil consumption _must_ describe an apocolyptical societial future.



Well so far only YOU have mentioned anything like an "apocolyptical societial future".

Funny how you project your own wild eyed fantasies onto folks who don't live in your scary movie.


----------



## Samson

loosecannon said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> extrapolation of a "exponential" model of oil consumption _must_ describe an apocolyptical societial future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well so far only YOU have mentioned anything like an "apocolyptical societial future".
> 
> Funny how you project your own wild eyed fantasies onto folks who don't live in your scary movie.
Click to expand...




Funny how you have such weak reading comprehension skills:

Although I'm not accustomed to spoon-feeding, let me introduce you to Jiggs. Don't be alarmed, I assure you the straight-jacket he is wearing won't allow him to do us any violence:




JiggsCasey said:


> The supply decline will be slow, while the _economic ramifications will magnify._
> 
> The only thing sudden would be the *ramifications of war *(trade war, or military war) in advance of *global financial panic*, the risk of which *grows with every passing month*.



Although Jiggs tends to contradict himself; e.g. "supply decline will be slow," yet there is a peak, I'm astonished you could miss his obvious, paranoia-induced hallucinations. 

If the "supply decline will be slow," then what will cause these "ramifications of war and "global financial panic?"


----------



## Samson

loosecannon said:


> Samson, there is almost always recoverable oil within wells that have been closed and capped, or taken offline.



Yes, and, your point is, I suppose, that this oil doesn't "count" as it doesn't support the "Peak Oil" theory that's been bantered about for the past 90 years, but never materializes because, strangely, all the oil that didn't "count" yesterday suddenly continues to sustain the demand for oil.

In the OP they discover new deposites of oil, but it doesn't count, because...........?

Oh yes, it's size MAY be small, (or large, but let's discount that possiblity: It wouldn't support the theory).


----------



## loosecannon

Samson said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> extrapolation of a "exponential" model of oil consumption _must_ describe an apocolyptical societial future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well so far only YOU have mentioned anything like an "apocolyptical societial future".
> 
> Funny how you project your own wild eyed fantasies onto folks who don't live in your scary movie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how you have such weak reading comprehension skills:
> 
> Although I'm not accustomed to spoon-feeding, let me introduce you to Jiggs. Don't be alarmed, I assure you the straight-jacket he is wearing won't allow him to do us any violence:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The supply decline will be slow, while the _economic ramifications will magnify._
> 
> The only thing sudden would be the *ramifications of war *(trade war, or military war) in advance of *global financial panic*, the risk of which *grows with every passing month*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Although Jiggs tends to contradict himself; e.g. "supply decline will be slow," yet there is a peak, I'm astonished you could miss his obvious, paranoia-induced hallucinations.
> 
> If the "supply decline will be slow," then what will cause these "ramifications of war and "global financial panic?"
Click to expand...


apparently you are too dense to realize that I am not Jiggs. And even the quote you posted came nowhere near the "apocolyptical societial future" you claimed.

You must have a reading comprehension disorder.


----------



## loosecannon

Samson said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Samson, there is almost always recoverable oil within wells that have been closed and capped, or taken offline.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and, your point is, I suppose, that this oil doesn't "count" as it doesn't support the "Peak Oil" theory that's been bantered about for the past 90 years, but never materializes because, strangely, all the oil that didn't "count" yesterday suddenly continues to sustain the demand for oil.
> 
> In the OP they discover new deposites of oil, but it doesn't count, because...........?
> 
> Oh yes, it's size MAY be small, (or large, but let's discount that possiblity: It wouldn't support the theory).
Click to expand...


more gibberish, but to clarify for the braincloudy: my point is that a new discovery of recoverable oil in an old field is only unique in that it is actually valuable enough to warrant the cost of recovery. 

EVERY capped well has recoverable oil in it. But almost none will ever be economically viable as new projects. 

But more importantly my point is that since we have an oil recovery policy dictated by ROI rather than maximum extraction we are leaving a shit load of oil in the ground on purpose and it will never be economically feasible to start from scratch to recover it. 

Just like it will be 1000 years before it becomes economically feasible to mine our landfills for copper, aluminum and other valuables that we threw out as trash before recycling became vogue.


----------



## Mr. H.

Not to stray off topic here but when you specifically focus in on a single discovery or an individual well, you tend to lose sight of the collective contribution. 

Why would a farmer bother with 80 acres of ground when the yield is microscopic compared to the total output of the U.S., or global output for that matter? Oh yeah- it's renewable and sustainable, but we'd all be fine without it. It wouldn't be missed. 

But that guy (or gal) farming those 80 acres has probably put a half dozen kids through college, bought as many vehicles in his lifetime, paid taxes, taken vacations, repaired his house, etc. etc. thereby contributing to the economy. 

The same is true of the people that drill for and find 85% of the oil and gas in this country- independent business owners. And there are some very small companies out there:

_One out of every six barrels of crude oil produced in the United States comes from a marginal well - a well whose production has slowed to 10 barrels a day or less. Over 85 percent of the total number of U.S. oil wells are now classified as marginal wells. There are over 396,500 of these wells in the United States, and together they produce over 797,400 barrels of oil per day, or nearly 10 percent of lower-48 states production.  Stripper wells are more common in older oil and gas producing regions, most notably in Appalachia, Texas and Oklahoma._

That's an average of 2 barrels per day. Somebody want to do the math on this one? Individually, these wells don't appear to matter for shit. Collectively, they represent a significant contribution to our domestic production and have an impressive impact on the economy- employing hundreds of thousands and adding billions to the GDP. 

So it's beyond me why anyone would dismiss a well making 2 barrels per day, let alone a discovery that potentially contains tens of millions of barrels. Peak oil or not- business goes on and thank goodness it does because oil and gas are the most precious of commodities yet the least understood or appreciated, and the individuals that risk fortunes and lives to find 2 barrels or tens of millions of barrels are goddamn forgotten underapprecated heros in our society.


----------



## Samson

loosecannon said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> extrapolation of a "exponential" model of oil consumption _must_ describe an apocolyptical societial future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well so far only YOU have mentioned anything like an "apocolyptical societial future".
> 
> Funny how you project your own wild eyed fantasies onto folks who don't live in your scary movie.
Click to expand...




loosecannon said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well so far only YOU have mentioned anything like an "apocolyptical societial future".
> 
> Funny how you project your own wild eyed fantasies onto folks who don't live in your scary movie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how you have such weak reading comprehension skills:
> 
> Although I'm not accustomed to spoon-feeding, let me introduce you to Jiggs. Don't be alarmed, I assure you the straight-jacket he is wearing won't allow him to do us any violence:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The supply decline will be slow, while the _economic ramifications will magnify._
> 
> The only thing sudden would be the *ramifications of war *(trade war, or military war) in advance of *global financial panic*, the risk of which *grows with every passing month*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Although Jiggs tends to contradict himself; e.g. "supply decline will be slow," yet there is a peak, I'm astonished you could miss his obvious, paranoia-induced hallucinations.
> 
> If the "supply decline will be slow," then what will cause these "ramifications of war and "global financial panic?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> apparently you are too dense to realize that I am not Jiggs. And even the quote you posted came nowhere near the "apocolyptical societial future" you claimed.
> 
> You must have a reading comprehension disorder.
Click to expand...


Correct, you are not Jiggs, but Jiggs is another confused believer in "Peak Oil."

I'm not projecting anything: He is his own example of ludicrousness. However, at least he was able to try, in his own incoherent, contradictory way, to explain the theory of "Peak Oil."

Unhappily, your role seems to be more of a parrot. Lets see if you can think outside the box: If my description of Peak Oil's apocolyptical societal future doesn't reflect Jiggs "ramifications of war and global financial panic," then what does?


----------



## loosecannon

I spose it is just that 2 bbls/day is 1 ten millionth of our needs. 1/10,000,000.


----------



## loosecannon

Samson said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> extrapolation of a "exponential" model of oil consumption _must_ describe an apocolyptical societial future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well so far only YOU have mentioned anything like an "apocolyptical societial future".
> 
> Funny how you project your own wild eyed fantasies onto folks who don't live in your scary movie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how you have such weak reading comprehension skills:
> 
> Although I'm not accustomed to spoon-feeding, let me introduce you to Jiggs. Don't be alarmed, I assure you the straight-jacket he is wearing won't allow him to do us any violence:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although Jiggs tends to contradict himself; e.g. "supply decline will be slow," yet there is a peak, I'm astonished you could miss his obvious, paranoia-induced hallucinations.
> 
> If the "supply decline will be slow," then what will cause these "ramifications of war and "global financial panic?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> apparently you are too dense to realize that I am not Jiggs. And even the quote you posted came nowhere near the "apocolyptical societial future" you claimed.
> 
> You must have a reading comprehension disorder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, you are not Jiggs, but Jiggs is another confused believer in "Peak Oil."
> 
> I'm not projecting anything: He is his own example of ludicrousness. However, at least he was able to try, in his own incoherent, contradictory way, to explain the theory of "Peak Oil."
> 
> Unhappily, your role seems to be more of a parrot. Lets see if you can think outside the box: If my description of Peak Oil's apocolyptical societal future doesn't reflect Jiggs "ramifications of war and global financial panic," then what does?
Click to expand...


who gives a shit what your description of Jiggs commentary means?

I am not he and you are not quoting him. You are just posting garbage in place of his actual text.

And I am not parroting him or anybody else.

You seem to be: lame, projecting, misquoting, assuming and flat out lying. 

Do you have a point or a clue?


----------



## Samson

loosecannon said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unhappily, your role seems to be more of a parrot. Lets see if you can think outside the box: _*If my description of Peak Oil's apocolyptical societal future doesn't reflect Jiggs "ramifications of war and global financial panic," then what does*_?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> who gives a shit what your description of Jiggs commentary means?
> 
> I am not he and you are not quoting him. You are just posting garbage in place of his actual text.
> 
> And I am not parroting him or anybody else.
> 
> You seem to be: lame, projecting, misquoting, assuming and flat out lying.
> 
> Do you have a point or a clue?
Click to expand...


Yes: That in all your blitherings, you have not been able to describe the result of the "Peak Oil" theory that you seem to have embrased because of some vague notion of "exponential" functions.

But, I'll ask a second time (since your reading skills have once again failed you) before I allow someone else to spoon-feed what I can only assume is the result of a mental handicap:

*If my description of Peak Oil's apocolyptical societal future doesn't reflect Jiggs "ramifications of war and global financial panic," then what does?*


----------



## JiggsCasey

Big Fitz said:


> 1.  We live in a finite universe.  Nothing can change that.
> 2.  Oil is a finite resource.  It will run out.
> 3.  We do not know accurately how much oil we do have in the world.
> 4.  Technology creates new ways to supply our energy needs
> 5.  We have always found technological solutions faster than we have run out of energy.



6.  "Hope" is not a domestic energy policy. 

We can not act on assumption. Nothing is remotely ready to replace what light crude provides complex societies.


----------



## JiggsCasey

Samson said:


> Yes: That in all your blitherings, you have not been able to describe the result of the "Peak Oil" theory that you seem to have embrased because of some vague notion of "exponential" functions.
> 
> But, I'll ask a second time (since your reading skills have once again failed you) before I allow someone else to spoon-feed what I can only assume is the result of a mental handicap:
> 
> *If my description of Peak Oil's apocolyptical societal future doesn't reflect Jiggs "ramifications of war and global financial panic," then what does?*



You're moving the goalposts again, Dick. What you initially said was that I somehow asserted there would be a dramatic and catastrophic drop in supply. That's what I took issue with, because I never said that. Now you're changing it to suit your smarmy premise.

Supply drop will be gradual. Financial panic in advance of that supply drop will be slightly faster, and has already begun all over the planet. As economic conditions and the strain of natural resource requirements get worse, the risk of military and/or trade conflict grows, as has been the case for centuries. Are you actually doubting that cause-effect? Or just still pretending there's plenty of oil for 100+ years based on nothing more than anecdotes and hope?

No doubt you ignored the links I presented in the previous post. That stuff doesn't adhere to your Frank Drebbin-like, "nothing to see here" narrative of obnoxiousness.

You can't debate the geology, because there is nothing to counter the argument. Mexico, in terminal decline. North Sea, terminal decline. Same with Indonesia, Kuwait, the U.S., Iran, Russia and on and on and on.

_*"You can't predict the future!! You can't predict the future!!! <bacaw!!!>"*_ ....   asshat.

Yes, there are new discoveries here and there. Of course. But the rate of discovery is not coming anywhere close to keeping up with dying existing capacity.

My challenge still stands: Still waiting for anyone to show the forum where and when was the last significant discovery of proven reserves of light crude in excess of 30 billion barrels? Yeah, think Carter administration.

Conventional oil production has flatlined since 2004. We are at the plateau of peak. Global decline will begin within the next few years. Period, end of story. Besides the geology and oil industry investment patterns that prove it (and you guys won't dare acknowledge) , this is only further confirmed by geopolitical behaviors towrads oil "rich" nations, and the impending crash of the U.S. dollar.

If you have real, comprehensive proof (beyond squawking about claims from 1909 and 1970) as to how the IEA, U.S. Dept. of Energy and our own Joint Chiefs are wrong, we'd be happy to examine it. If not, you're useless to this topic, wasting bandwidth, and making yourselves look ultra-retarded and arrogant - a lethal combination, as we learned from 2001-2008.

But heavy oil is not light crude, abiotic science died many decades ago, and estimated reserves 10 miles under bedrock is not "recoverable reserves."


----------



## Samson

JiggsCasey said:


> My challenge still stands: Still waiting for anyone to show the forum where and when was the last significant discovery of proven reserves of light crude in excess of 30 billion barrels? Yeah, think Carter administration.





Yes, I believe you're right......._*40 years ago, maybe?*_


And we've still not experienced your absurd predictions.


Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## JiggsCasey

JiggsCasey said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes: That in all your blitherings, you have not been able to describe the result of the "Peak Oil" theory that you seem to have embrased because of some vague notion of "exponential" functions.
> 
> But, I'll ask a second time (since your reading skills have once again failed you) before I allow someone else to spoon-feed what I can only assume is the result of a mental handicap:
> 
> *If my description of Peak Oil's apocolyptical societal future doesn't reflect Jiggs "ramifications of war and global financial panic," then what does?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're moving the goalposts again, Dick. What you initially said was that I somehow asserted there would be a dramatic and catastrophic drop in supply. That's what I took issue with, because I never said that. Now you're changing it to suit your smarmy premise.
> 
> Supply drop will be gradual. Financial panic in advance of that supply drop will be slightly faster, and has already begun all over the planet. As economic conditions and the strain of natural resource requirements get worse, the risk of military and/or trade conflict grows, as has been the case for centuries. Are you actually doubting that cause-effect? Or just still pretending there's plenty of oil for 100+ years based on nothing more than anecdotes and hope?
> 
> No doubt you ignored the links I presented in the previous post. That stuff doesn't adhere to your Frank Drebbin-like, "nothing to see here" narrative of obnoxiousness.
> 
> You can't debate the geology, because there is nothing to counter the argument. Mexico, in terminal decline. North Sea, terminal decline. Same with Indonesia, Kuwait, the U.S., Iran, Russia and on and on and on.
> 
> _*"You can't predict the future!! You can't predict the future!!! <bacaw!!!>"*_ ....   asshat.
> 
> Yes, there are new discoveries here and there. Of course. But the rate of discovery is not coming anywhere close to keeping up with dying existing capacity.
> 
> My challenge still stands: Still waiting for anyone to show the forum where and when was the last significant discovery of proven reserves of light crude in excess of 30 billion barrels? Yeah, think Carter administration.
> 
> Conventional oil production has flatlined since 2004. We are at the plateau of peak. Global decline will begin within the next few years. Period, end of story. Besides the geology and oil industry investment patterns that prove it (and you guys won't dare acknowledge) , this is only further confirmed by geopolitical behaviors towrads oil "rich" nations, and the impending crash of the U.S. dollar.
> 
> If you have real, comprehensive proof (beyond squawking about claims from 1909 and 1970) as to how the IEA, U.S. Dept. of Energy and our own Joint Chiefs are wrong, we'd be happy to examine it. If not, you're useless to this topic, wasting bandwidth, and making yourselves look ultra-retarded and arrogant - a lethal combination, as we learned from 2001-2008.
> 
> But heavy oil is not light crude, abiotic science died many decades ago, and estimated reserves 10 miles under bedrock is not "recoverable reserves."
Click to expand...


*bump* due to your propensity to not actually read.




Samson said:


> Yes, I believe you're right......._*40 years ago, maybe?*_
> 
> 
> And we've still not experienced your absurd predictions.
> 
> 
> Thanks for clearing that up.



You just don't get it, do you asshat?

We've been living off the glut of existing capacity that was discovered  in the middle of the 20th century. Obviously, if new discoveries aren't keeping up since, and demand continue to rise, then it's going to flatline and begin decline.  You get this basic concept, right?

It most certainly IS starting to happen. And you're too chicken shit to even TRY to show how the data is wrong. Because you can't.

Like I said: You exude both arrogance and ignorance. A deadly combination.


----------



## Samson

JiggsCasey said:


> It most certainly IS starting to happen. And you're too chicken shit to even TRY to show how the data is wrong. Because you can't..



***YAWN****

Wasn't "it most certainly starting to happen" 40 years AGO?

Could I offer better evidence than the very fact that 40 years after your fantasy "Peak Oil" nothing has changed?

There's nothing to suggest that 40 years from now you'll still be a blithering idiot, drooling on yourself with predictions of "WAR!!" and "GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS!!" as a result of some imaginary theory......

Hopefully by then you'll have moved on to some slightly less ridiculous cause: Elvis Lives? Ancient UFO's?


----------



## loosecannon

Samson said:


> Yes: That in all your blitherings, you have not been able to describe the result of the "Peak Oil" theory that you seem to have embrased because of some vague notion of "exponential" functions.



You have a reading comprehension problem. I have never embraced peak oil.



Samson said:


> But, I'll ask a second time (since your reading skills have once again failed you) before I allow someone else to spoon-feed what I can only assume is the result of a mental handicap:
> 
> *If my description of Peak Oil's apocolyptical societal future doesn't reflect Jiggs "ramifications of war and global financial panic," then what does?*



How in the fuck would I know what best describes Jigg's characterization? I repeat, I am not Jiggs. 

But I do know that  "ramifications of war and global financial panic," falls far short of an "apocolyptical societal future". But you probably have no idea what a "apocolyptical societal future" even is.


----------



## loosecannon

JiggsCasey said:


> But heavy oil is not light crude, abiotic science died many decades ago, and estimated reserves 10 miles under bedrock is not "recoverable reserves."



I think heavy sour oil is recoverable. I have a friend who does this in Venezuela; heated pipelines, much more complicated, but easily cost effective when oil is above $50/bbl. 

There may be a lot more too it than my rudimentary grasp of "heavy" and "sour" oils, but at least in many cases we will be recovering that oil, tho at an additional cost.


----------



## loosecannon

Samson said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> It most certainly IS starting to happen. And you're too chicken shit to even TRY to show how the data is wrong. Because you can't..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ***YAWN****
> 
> Wasn't "it most certainly starting to happen" 40 years AGO?
> 
> Could I offer better evidence than the very fact that 40 years after your fantasy "Peak Oil" nothing has changed?
> 
> There's nothing to suggest that 40 years from now you'll still be a blithering idiot, drooling on yourself with predictions of "WAR!!" and "GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS!!" as a result of some imaginary theory......
> 
> Hopefully by then you'll have moved on to some slightly less ridiculous cause: Elvis Lives? Ancient UFO's?
Click to expand...


That post was 100% childish bullshit. Grow up.


----------



## FactFinder

Now, now don't go messin with peak oil "theory" the oil companies may have to make do with a few billion less. Poor fellas!


----------



## editec

I will say this...

for all the bruhaha about diminishing oil, the cost really hasn't gone up all that much.

Back when I was a kid and minimum wage was $1, gas was about 35 cents, or basically about 20 minutes work.

Today minimum wage is about $7.50 and gas is about $3.00. 

AGain, we see the cost of oil to the minimum wage is roughly the same.

Compare the minimum wage to most other things we have to buy and you'll find that oil really hasn't gone up all that much.


----------



## Samson

loosecannon said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes: That in all your blitherings, you have not been able to describe the result of the "Peak Oil" theory that you seem to have embrased because of some vague notion of "exponential" functions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a reading comprehension problem. I have never embraced peak oil.
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, I'll ask a second time (since your reading skills have once again failed you) before I allow someone else to spoon-feed what I can only assume is the result of a mental handicap:
> 
> *If my description of Peak Oil's apocolyptical societal future doesn't reflect Jiggs "ramifications of war and global financial panic," then what does?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How in the fuck would I know what best describes Jigg's characterization? I repeat, I am not Jiggs.
Click to expand...


I have made the question too complicated for you, so despite my conviction you don't deserve spoon-feeding, I'll try to simplify if for you enough that it might be digested:

What describes the ramifications of _*your*_ imaginary "exponential" Peak Oil supply profile?

I expect something evasive and vague.


----------



## Samson

loosecannon said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> It most certainly IS starting to happen. And you're too chicken shit to even TRY to show how the data is wrong. Because you can't..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ***YAWN****
> 
> Wasn't "it most certainly starting to happen" 40 years AGO?
> 
> Could I offer better evidence than the very fact that 40 years after your fantasy "Peak Oil" nothing has changed?
> 
> There's nothing to suggest that 40 years from now you'll still be a blithering idiot, drooling on yourself with predictions of "WAR!!" and "GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS!!" as a result of some imaginary theory......
> 
> Hopefully by then you'll have moved on to some slightly less ridiculous cause: Elvis Lives? Ancient UFO's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That post was 100% childish bullshit. Grow up.
Click to expand...


If you cannot form an effective response, then just unsubscribe from the thread.

The Jan Brady response: "Its just stupid, _STUIPID_, STUPID!!" isn't any more impressive than repeating 40 year-old warnings.


----------



## loosecannon

editec said:


> I will say this...
> 
> for all the bruhaha about diminishing oil, the cost really hasn't gone up all that much.
> 
> Back when I was a kid and minimum wage was $1, gas was about 35 cents, or basically about 20 minutes work.
> 
> Today minimum wage is about $7.50 and gas is about $3.00.
> 
> AGain, we see the cost of oil to the minimum wage is roughly the same.
> 
> Compare the minimum wage to most other things we have to buy and you'll find that oil really hasn't gone up all that much.



year          price         inflation adjusted
1946 	$1.63 	$17.92

Meaning that since 46 oil prices have increase 4 times as fast as inflation

1970 	$3.39 	$19.04

and since 1970 oil prices have increase 4.46 times as much as inflation

what was your point again?

Historical Crude Oil Prices Table

BBC NEWS | Business | Market Data | Commodities


----------



## loosecannon

Samson said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> ***YAWN****
> 
> Wasn't "it most certainly starting to happen" 40 years AGO?
> 
> Could I offer better evidence than the very fact that 40 years after your fantasy "Peak Oil" nothing has changed?
> 
> There's nothing to suggest that 40 years from now you'll still be a blithering idiot, drooling on yourself with predictions of "WAR!!" and "GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS!!" as a result of some imaginary theory......
> 
> Hopefully by then you'll have moved on to some slightly less ridiculous cause: Elvis Lives? Ancient UFO's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That post was 100% childish bullshit. Grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you cannot form an effective response, then just unsubscribe from the thread.
> 
> The Jan Brady response: "Its just stupid, _STUIPID_, STUPID!!" isn't any more impressive than repeating 40 year-old warnings.
Click to expand...


You should take your own advise, Jan. And you should stop basing your entire argument on words you put in other people's mouths, moron. 

Better yet, why don't you just indicate at the top of each post whether you are making an adult point to assist the board in scrolling without missing your rare posts of merit.


----------



## loosecannon

Samson said:


> I have made the question too complicated for you, so despite my conviction you don't deserve spoon-feeding, I'll try to simplify if for you enough that it might be digested:
> 
> What describes the ramifications of _*your*_ imaginary "exponential" Peak Oil supply profile?
> 
> I expect something evasive and vague.



See. There you go again putting words in other's mouths and then expecting them to bite.

I have quite clearly stated several times that as use increases, and as supply is finite the supply will eventually be exhausted. 

If that continues to be too complex for your feeble abilities I will try to draw you a cartoon to explain it. Fair enough, Jan?


----------



## loosecannon

FactFinder said:


> Now, now don't go messin with peak oil "theory" the oil companies may have to make do with a few billion less. Poor fellas!



No much better to mess with the abiotic oil "theory" that asserts oil just automatically renews itself each time it is consumed like a mythical Japanese rice cake.

LOOK! UP IN THE SKY! There is ETHANE in SPACE!


----------



## Samson

loosecannon said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have made the question too complicated for you, so despite my conviction you don't deserve spoon-feeding, I'll try to simplify if for you enough that it might be digested:
> 
> What describes the ramifications of _*your*_ imaginary "exponential" Peak Oil supply profile?
> 
> I expect something evasive and vague.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See. There you go again putting words in other's mouths and then expecting them to bite.
> 
> I have quite clearly stated several times that as use increases, and as supply is finite the supply will eventually be exhausted.
> 
> If that continues to be too complex for your feeble abilities I will try to draw you a cartoon to explain it. Fair enough, Jan?
Click to expand...


Evasive and vague about ramifications: Thanks for not surprising me.


----------



## loosecannon

Samson said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have made the question too complicated for you, so despite my conviction you don't deserve spoon-feeding, I'll try to simplify if for you enough that it might be digested:
> 
> What describes the ramifications of _*your*_ imaginary "exponential" Peak Oil supply profile?
> 
> I expect something evasive and vague.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See. There you go again putting words in other's mouths and then expecting them to bite.
> 
> I have quite clearly stated several times that as use increases, and as supply is finite the supply will eventually be exhausted.
> 
> If that continues to be too complex for your feeble abilities I will try to draw you a cartoon to explain it. Fair enough, Jan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evasive and vague about ramifications: Thanks for not surprising me.
Click to expand...


Liar, I just said what I began saying.

You just have shit for brains and some kind of dishonest agenda. And you are a tool. 

If you had a brain and weren't a dishonest tool you might be relevant.


----------



## Samson

loosecannon said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> See. There you go again putting words in other's mouths and then expecting them to bite.
> 
> I have quite clearly stated several times that as use increases, and as supply is finite the supply will eventually be exhausted.
> 
> If that continues to be too complex for your feeble abilities I will try to draw you a cartoon to explain it. Fair enough, Jan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evasive and vague about ramifications: Thanks for not surprising me.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar, I just said what I began saying.
> 
> You just have shit for brains and some kind of dishonest agenda. And you are a tool.
> 
> If you had a brain and weren't a dishonest tool you might be relevant.
Click to expand...


Blah, Blah, BLAH.

Now you are reduced to amusing me in the feeble attempt to evade.

I suggest you simply admit you haven't a fucking clue about what you're talking and unsubscribe before you further embarrass yourself.

*What describes the ramifications of your imaginary "exponential" Peak Oil supply profile?*

I shall not spoon feed you the possiblities.

Now, rinse, wash, repeat: "Oil is not renewable. Oil will not last forever. It will run Out."



You figured that out all by yourself.


----------



## loosecannon

> Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. ~Author unknown, attributed to Mark Twain



indeed


----------



## Samson

loosecannon said:


> Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. ~Author unknown, attributed to Mark Twain
> 
> 
> 
> 
> indeed
Click to expand...


Yes, you're owned






I suggested you simply unsubscribe: Still a good suggestion.


----------



## loosecannon

You have a very lucid fantasy life, Simpson.

For the past 4 generations oil consumption has increased by approximately a magnitude with each generation.

That is exponential growth.

And you are a Homer.


----------



## JiggsCasey

Samson said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> It most certainly IS starting to happen. And you're too chicken shit to even TRY to show how the data is wrong. Because you can't..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ***YAWN****
> 
> Wasn't "it most certainly starting to happen" 40 years AGO?
Click to expand...


Dick, be more clear. 

You keep squawking that hollow parrallel over and over again and assigning it to me.  Please link to who made the claim that anyone said oil would start to run out 40 years ago. I have little doubt you're creating a straw man, extrapolating claims that emanated from the report "Limits to Growth," which was entirely accurate.  Recognizing Hubbert's peak 40 years ago (which came true for U.S. production) does not mean any of those people said oil was running out THAT decade. You're being intellectually dishonest, AGAIN.

It's what you do.



Samson said:


> Could I offer better evidence than the very fact that 40 years after your fantasy "Peak Oil" nothing has changed?



Yeah, global demand up 50%, price of food and fuel up 500% since then, most OPEC nations past peak production, U.S. occupation of the Middle East at great financial cost, strip-mining of Alberta (and soon the Rockies), and desperate offshore drilling at riskier depths.... but nothing's changed. You're a whole new brand of asshole.



Samson said:


> There's nothing to suggest that 40 years from now you'll still be a blithering idiot, drooling on yourself with predictions of "WAR!!" and "GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS!!" as a result of some imaginary theory......



You do realize how irrelevant you make yourself look with every arrogant, obnoxious post that pretends the conclusions of IEA, the Pentagon, the US Dept. of. Energy and the German government are all "imaginary" and you somehow know better.   

Clown.

Your unwillingness to even acknowledge, let alone debate, known data has removed you from consideration on this topic. 40 years ago isn't today. Not in terms of cost, demand, rate of discovery, nor the desperate measures being taken to offset dying capacity. 40 years ago was merely the peak of discovery, not peak production.

Perhaps at some point, you'll remove your head from you own rectum and understand what is being debated here. But probably not. You're a dictionary definition of the classic flat-earther.


----------



## Samson

Samson said:


> Now, rinse, wash, repeat: "Oil is not renewable. Oil will not last forever. It will run Out."
> 
> 
> 
> You figured that out all by yourself.





loosecannon said:


> You have a very lucid fantasy life, Simpson.
> 
> For the past 4 generations oil consumption has increased by approximately a magnitude with each generation.
> 
> That is exponential growth.



At least you are predictable: repeating again, and again, and again what HAS happened, making no connection with what might happen, and evading the point.

At least Jiggs drooling in his drooling idiocy has the balls (if not the brains) to predict "WAR!!!" and "Financial CRISIS!!" as "ramifications" of peak oil.

You cannot even present ONE...._ONE WAY_, that "Peak Oil" may _negatively_ effect ANYONE.

Try again, genius

Now, rinse, wash, repeat: "Oil is not renewable. Oil will not last forever. It will run Out."


----------



## Samson

JiggsCasey said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> It most certainly IS starting to happen. And you're too chicken shit to even TRY to show how the data is wrong. Because you can't..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ***YAWN****
> 
> Wasn't "it most certainly starting to happen" 40 years AGO?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dick, be more clear.
> 
> You keep squawking that hollow parrallel over and over again and assigning it to me.  Please link to who made the claim that anyone said oil would start to run out 40 years ago. I have little doubt you're creating a straw man, extrapolating claims that emanated from the report "Limits to Growth," which was entirely accurate.  Recognizing Hubbert's peak 40 years ago (which came true for U.S. production) does not mean any of those people said oil was running out THAT decade. You're being intellectually dishonest, AGAIN.
> 
> It's what you do.
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could I offer better evidence than the very fact that 40 years after your fantasy "Peak Oil" nothing has changed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, global demand up 50%, price of food and fuel up 500% since then, most OPEC nations past peak production, U.S. occupation of the Middle East at great financial cost, strip-mining of Alberta (and soon the Rockies), and desperate offshore drilling at riskier depths.... but nothing's changed. You're a whole new brand of asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing to suggest that 40 years from now you'll still be a blithering idiot, drooling on yourself with predictions of "WAR!!" and "GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS!!" as a result of some imaginary theory......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do realize how irrelevant you make yourself look with every arrogant, obnoxious post that pretends the conclusions of IEA, the Pentagon, the US Dept. of. Energy and the German government are all "imaginary" and you somehow know better.
> 
> Clown.
> 
> Your unwillingness to even acknowledge, let alone debate, known data has removed you from consideration on this topic. 40 years ago isn't today. Not in terms of cost, demand, rate of discovery, nor the desperate measures being taken to offset dying capacity. 40 years ago was merely the peak of discovery, not peak production.
> 
> Perhaps at some point, you'll remove your head from you own rectum and understand what is being debated here. But probably not. You're a dictionary definition of the classic flat-earther.
Click to expand...


More rambling will not make your ridiculous repetition of "Peak Oil" every 40 years any more relevant.

You need another silly theory: I hear that The Ancient Aliens Society is making a come-back. Perhaps that would give you some traction among naive underclassmen that need to be entertained in sociology classes.


----------



## loosecannon

Samson said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, rinse, wash, repeat: "Oil is not renewable. Oil will not last forever. It will run Out."
> 
> 
> 
> You figured that out all by yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a very lucid fantasy life, Simpson.
> 
> For the past 4 generations oil consumption has increased by approximately a magnitude with each generation.
> 
> That is exponential growth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least you are predictable: repeating again, and again, and again what HAS happened, making no connection with what might happen, and evading the point.
> 
> At least Jiggs drooling in his drooling idiocy has the balls (if not the brains) to predict "WAR!!!" and "Financial CRISIS!!" as "ramifications" of peak oil.
> 
> You cannot even present ONE...._ONE WAY_, that "Peak Oil" may _negatively_ effect ANYONE.
> 
> Try again, genius
> 
> Now, rinse, wash, repeat: "Oil is not renewable. Oil will not last forever. It will run Out."
Click to expand...


You must be the most fucktarded person I have ever witnessed online.

First off WHY would I have any reason to "You cannot even present ONE...._ONE WAY_, that "Peak Oil" may _negatively_ effect ANYONE."

I don't subscribe to other people's theories even when I generally agree with them. Predicting the future is a fool's game. Nobody with any sense ever does it unless they stand to prove their own theories as a result. 

And why would I posit a guess about what might happen when I already know what WILL happen if we continue to increase our petro chemical consumption?

Go make me some coffee, black. And fetch the paper.


----------



## loosecannon

Samson said:


> More rambling will not make your ridiculous repetition of "Peak Oil" every 40 years any more relevant.



Take your own advise, fuctarded one. Putting words in other poster's mouths ad nauseum makes you look like you have advanced Alzheimer's.


----------



## Samson

loosecannon said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> More rambling will not make your ridiculous repetition of "Peak Oil" every 40 years any more relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take your own advise, fuctarded one. Putting words in other poster's mouths ad nauseum makes you look like you have advanced Alzheimer's.
Click to expand...


Translation: "When I cannot defend my own stupidity, maybe I can defend someone else's"


----------



## Samson

loosecannon said:


> I don't subscribe to other people's theories even when I generally agree with them. Predicting the future is a fool's game.





You actually have no idea what "Peak Oil" is, and certainly have no concept of WHY _math_, much less an exponential fucntion, is used.

How Extraordinarily Moronic.


----------



## uscitizen

Peak Lubricants - Motor Oils


----------



## loosecannon

Samson said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't subscribe to other people's theories even when I generally agree with them. Predicting the future is a fool's game.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You actually have no idea what "Peak Oil" is, and certainly have no concept of WHY _math_, much less an exponential fucntion, is used.
> 
> How Extraordinarily Moronic.
Click to expand...


Wrong on all counts, dummy. You continue to make the dumbshit mistake assuming that I subscribe to peak oil, even tho 5 times I have directly told you otherwise. 

Even if I generally agreed with the premise I don't "believe" in other people's theories. I don't subscribe to other people's predictions. And a theory is after all a prediction which can either be proven or disproven via experiment. 

And I already demonstrated that oil consumption has increased exponentially. You just don't understand the concepts involved. 

Our oil consumption has in fact increased by roughly a magnitude every generation for the last 100 years. That is a textbook example of an exponential function. 

I am becoming convinced that you have Alzheimer's or some other dementia. You post like a clown, you can't remember anything anybody says, you serially assume their positions despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you are always arguing with strawmen. 

Maybe you should get medical help.


----------



## loosecannon

Samson said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> More rambling will not make your ridiculous repetition of "Peak Oil" every 40 years any more relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take your own advise, fuctarded one. Putting words in other poster's mouths ad nauseum makes you look like you have advanced Alzheimer's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translation: "When I cannot defend my own stupidity, maybe I can defend someone else's"
Click to expand...


Fuck off and die, Homer. You have studiously avoided insurmountable refutation of your shallow arguments, and you still wallow in the frail illusion of being credible in this discussion. 

You have been owned, sold, securitized and foreclosed on and you don't even know it.


----------



## uscitizen

Why would anyone want to own him?


----------



## JiggsCasey

Samson said:


> More rambling will not make your ridiculous repetition of "Peak Oil" every 40 years any more relevant.
> 
> You need another silly theory: I hear that The Ancient Aliens Society is making a come-back. Perhaps that would give you some traction among naive underclassmen that need to be entertained in sociology classes.



Personal ridicule is the extent of your argument, because you are too chickenshit to dispute the findings of those entities... All you have is the irrelevant straw man of "40 years ago!! 40 years ago!! <bacaw!!!!>"

Pretending I'm "drooling in idiocy" isn't convincing anyone of anything. Especially considering you're running from the specifics of this dispute at every turn. You are plain awful at this, and completely out of bullets. 

We are already at peak. Here, educate yourself:

IEA World Energy Outlook, 2010:

_Crude oil output reaches an undulating plateau of around 68-69 mb/d by 2020,* but never regains its all-time peak of 70 mb/d reached in 2006,* while production of natural gas liquids (NGL) and unconventional oil grows quickly._​
That.... is.... peak.

Shhhhh.


----------



## Samson

loosecannon said:


> Wrong on all counts, dummy. You continue to make the *dumbshit mistake assuming that I subscribe to peak oil*, even tho 5 times I have directly told you otherwise.





Speaking of convenient forgetfulness:



loosecannon said:


> Get real, it is a hard and fast certainty that if humans keep consuming oil in vast quantities, but especially in exponentially increasing quantities, *that peak oil will occur*.





You're making this too easy......

.you should probably try debating something about which you have at least some familiarity: The Pros and Cons of working as a Wal-Mart Greeter?


----------



## Samson

JiggsCasey said:


> Pretending I'm "drooling in idiocy" isn't convincing anyone of anything. .




No?




loosecannon said:


> You continue to make the dumbshit mistake assuming that I subscribe to peak oil, even tho 5 times I have directly told you otherwise.



Look, I suppose you have some infantile follower somewhere that allows you to entertain them with your science fiction. Why not try convincing them of your fairy tale?


----------



## loosecannon

Samson said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong on all counts, dummy. You continue to make the *dumbshit mistake assuming that I subscribe to peak oil*, even tho 5 times I have directly told you otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of convenient forgetfulness:
> 
> 
> 
> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get real, it is a hard and fast certainty that if humans keep consuming oil in vast quantities, but especially in exponentially increasing quantities, *that peak oil will occur*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're making this too easy......
> 
> .you should probably try debating something about which you have at least some familiarity: The Pros and Cons of working as a Wal-Mart Greeter?
Click to expand...


epic fail, wash my windows, pool boy.


----------



## loosecannon

Samson said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretending I'm "drooling in idiocy" isn't convincing anyone of anything. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to make the dumbshit mistake assuming that I subscribe to peak oil, even tho 5 times I have directly told you otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I suppose you have some infantile follower somewhere that allows you to entertain them with your science fiction. Why not try convincing them of your fairy tale?
Click to expand...


get medical help for your dementia.


----------



## william the wie

I don't know about drilled oil having peaked but I would bet that created bio-tech oil in the less than $60/bbl range and tropical ethanol in the $40/bbl or less range is no more than a decade away. There is too much money on the table already.


----------



## Samson

loosecannon said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong on all counts, dummy. You continue to make the *dumbshit mistake assuming that I subscribe to peak oil*, even tho 5 times I have directly told you otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of convenient forgetfulness:
> 
> 
> 
> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get real, it is a hard and fast certainty that if humans keep consuming oil in vast quantities, but especially in exponentially increasing quantities, *that peak oil will occur*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're making this too easy......
> 
> .you should probably try debating something about which you have at least some familiarity: The Pros and Cons of working as a Wal-Mart Greeter?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> epic fail, wash my windows, pool boy.
Click to expand...


I'll give you a couple of idiotic posts, then I expect you to change your opinion again.


----------



## loosecannon

william the wie said:


> I don't know about drilled oil having peaked but I would bet that created bio-tech oil in the less than $60/bbl range and tropical ethanol in the $40/bbl or less range is no more than a decade away. There is too much money on the table already.



I tried to get into this several years ago and the technology was slow to mature. The potential certainly exists. But to make a business of it you can have all the free feedstocks you want and everything else but you still compete against super cheap oil. Whose price is continually in flux.

The bottom line is that petro chemicals are so cheap that they discourage every alternative. Even coal oil, which is highly feasible, is still barely cost effective and volatility in oil prices still manages to discourage it's development.


----------



## loosecannon

Samson said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of convenient forgetfulness:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're making this too easy......
> 
> .you should probably try debating something about which you have at least some familiarity: The Pros and Cons of working as a Wal-Mart Greeter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> epic fail, wash my windows, pool boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll give you a couple of idiotic posts, then I expect you to change your opinion again.
Click to expand...


I never changed my opinion, Homer Sampson.


----------



## Samson

loosecannon said:


> I never changed my opinion, Homer Sampson.



Right.

Maybe you can't even read your own posts:




Samson said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong on all counts, dummy. You continue to make the *dumbshit mistake assuming that I subscribe to peak oil*, even tho 5 times I have directly told you otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of convenient forgetfulness:
> 
> 
> 
> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get real, it is a hard and fast certainty that if humans keep consuming oil in vast quantities, but especially in exponentially increasing quantities, *that peak oil will occur*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're making this too easy......
> 
> .you should probably try debating something about which you have at least some familiarity: The Pros and Cons of working as a Wal-Mart Greeter?
Click to expand...


----------



## william the wie

loosecannon said:


> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about drilled oil having peaked but I would bet that created bio-tech oil in the less than $60/bbl range and tropical ethanol in the $40/bbl or less range is no more than a decade away. There is too much money on the table already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I tried to get into this several years ago and the technology was slow to mature. The potential certainly exists. But to make a business of it you can have all the free feedstocks you want and everything else but you still compete against super cheap oil. Whose price is continually in flux.
> 
> The bottom line is that petro chemicals are so cheap that they discourage every alternative. Even coal oil, which is highly feasible, is still barely cost effective and volatility in oil prices still manages to discourage it's development.
Click to expand...

Tropical ethanol is already lower in MPG cost than petroleum but domestic sugar and ethanol producers are protected. Likewise synthetic petroleum has already prevented the $200/bbl threatened since 1974 and broke the link between the price of gold and oil.


----------



## loosecannon

Samson said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never changed my opinion, Homer Sampson.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right.
> 
> Maybe you can't even read your own posts:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of convenient forgetfulness:
> 
> 
> 
> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get real, it is a hard and fast certainty that if humans keep consuming oil in vast quantities, but especially in exponentially increasing quantities, *that peak oil will occur*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're making this too easy......
> 
> .you should probably try debating something about which you have at least some familiarity: The Pros and Cons of working as a Wal-Mart Greeter?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


actually it is you who can't read, now stop boring me with your inanities.


----------



## loosecannon

william the wie said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about drilled oil having peaked but I would bet that created bio-tech oil in the less than $60/bbl range and tropical ethanol in the $40/bbl or less range is no more than a decade away. There is too much money on the table already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I tried to get into this several years ago and the technology was slow to mature. The potential certainly exists. But to make a business of it you can have all the free feedstocks you want and everything else but you still compete against super cheap oil. Whose price is continually in flux.
> 
> The bottom line is that petro chemicals are so cheap that they discourage every alternative. Even coal oil, which is highly feasible, is still barely cost effective and volatility in oil prices still manages to discourage it's development.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tropical ethanol is already lower in MPG cost than petroleum but domestic sugar and ethanol producers are protected. Likewise synthetic petroleum has already prevented the $200/bbl threatened since 1974 and broke the link between the price of gold and oil.
Click to expand...


Linking the price of oil to that of food is a very dangerous game imo. When did the link between oil and gold break? I actually took a look at this relationship a year ago and didn't see what you see. But Gold is on a tear.


----------



## Samson

LC, like most morons, you've buried yourself:


First, you claim peak oil will occur....in fact, its "Mathematically IMPOSSIBLE to be otherwise"



loosecannon said:


> peak oil will occur. ....
> 
> It is mathematically impossible to be otherwise.
> 
> The resource pool is finite, our consumption curve is tending toward the infinite, do the math.



Then you wonder why anyone would "assume you subscribe to peak oil:"



loosecannon said:


> You continue to make the dumbshit mistake assuming that I subscribe to peak oil, even tho 5 times I have directly told you otherwise.



Bravo!

Imbeciles like you are what make message boards so entertaining

Keep bending over: I'm enjoying pwning you OVER and OVER!!!


----------



## Baruch Menachem

Well, since oil was created by long extinct organisms millions of years ago, one could argue that "peak oil" has already happened.   As there is no more being created.   We have always been running out of a scarce resource. 

As we continue to run out, the price of the good will gradually increase to points where either it is better to use alternative resources for that particular use, or the cost will become prohibitive for that use.     Either way, as time goes on the price will continually rise.  

Also, there are price levels where we will start to see substitution.

But you know, I have lived through a long time of people preaching we were going to be out of oil really soon.    Back in the early 70's it was accepted as gospel that all the oil would be gone by 1980.  there is still a lot of oil sloshing around.   It is  a finite resource.   And soon or late we will run out.  And the chicken little types will be able to say "I told you so."   But that date is not yet.


----------



## william the wie

From the data on oil extraction technology and the decreasing cost of bio-tech oil I doubt peak oil exists as a practical matter. This is a highly unpopular view because it was first proposed by young Earth theologians:

The creation of tar and asphalt in the Dead Sea combined with the association of oil with salt domes started a search for micro-organisms that make petroleum as a waste product.

While that search has had limited success it has led to the creation of micro-organisms that do in fact create as a waste product.

The cost of making oil vs. extraction costs created a de facto ceiling on oil prices by 2008. Currently the ceiling is north of $200/bbl but it keeps coming down and that is scaring OPEC. Once creation economies are reached the middle-east may implode.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Well cannon, I would say this won was made for you


----------



## loosecannon

Sorry Fitnah, but Homer Samson could not have embarrassed himself further.  Just sayin. He had no point, he managed no debate, he scored no points in 17 innings.

Epic fail. A stop sign would have cleaned Homer Sampson's clock. Or a broken clock.


----------



## Samson

loosecannon said:


> Sorry Fitnah, but Homer Samson could not have embarrassed himself further.  Just sayin. He had no point, he managed no debate, he scored no points in 17 innings.
> 
> Epic fail. A stop sign would have cleaned Homer Sampson's clock. Or a broken clock.



poor loosescrew







I'll leave you to twist.


----------



## loosecannon

but then again you are an abject moron, Homer Sampson.


----------



## JiggsCasey

Samson said:


> No?



No. 

I notice, for like the 12th time, you can't dare bring yourself to dispute the data, or explain how/why the IEA would be lying to the world.

All you have is your smarmy arrogance. That's why you suck at this.

Ah well. People also went back to the bar to keep drinking even after the Titanic started listing.


----------



## Big Fitz

Samson said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Fitnah, but Homer Samson could not have embarrassed himself further.  Just sayin. He had no point, he managed no debate, he scored no points in 17 innings.
> 
> Epic fail. A stop sign would have cleaned Homer Sampson's clock. Or a broken clock.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> poor loosescrew
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll leave you to twist.
Click to expand...







Given enough rope....


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

crusaderfrank said:


> the space program has made a total mockery of the twin notions of "peak oil" and that earth based hydrocarbons are "fossil fuels"
> 
> the planets and even moons are awash in hydrocarbons and there were never dinosaurs on any of them.



dont tell them that, they wont understand it.


----------



## JiggsCasey

Mr.Fitnah said:


> crusaderfrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> the space program has made a total mockery of the twin notions of "peak oil" and that earth based hydrocarbons are "fossil fuels"
> 
> the planets and even moons are awash in hydrocarbons and there were never dinosaurs on any of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dont tell them that, they wont understand it.
Click to expand...


oops... wrong again. Just like we understand that faint traces of alcohol in space are not evidence that Duff beer rains down from the heavens.

Grow up, and think before posting.

What's most interesting in threads like this is that anti-peak bloviators from both camps never lock horns against eachother.  Some of you admit oil is finite (Samson), while others insist it's abiotic and infinite (this genius above).

Yet, you'll never openly dispute eachother. All you think you know is that there is no problem, and the IEA is somehow lying to the world. ... Nevermind the skyrocketing cost of food, fuel and consumer goods, and the growing insolvency of U.S. states and sovereign nations. That's all just caused by the U.S. mortgage crisis, and nothing deeper. LOL.

To you guys, if you just spend endless sums of money to drill dry holes and pray really hard, God will just put more oil in the ground.


----------



## uscitizen

Jiggs we don't have time to worry about our home problems we are too busy about Turkey, Iran and NC to worry about our own problems.

to worry or work on our own porblems would be to admit that we have them.


----------



## mdn2000

Oil is infinite, in your lifetime, that of your children.

Man is insignificant on earth, unable to control nor change a thing.

Takes one big head, or one uneducated idiot to think otherwise.


----------



## Mr. H.

uscitizen said:


> Jiggs we don't have time to worry about our home problems we are too busy about Turkey, Iran and NC to worry about our own problems.
> 
> to worry or work on our own porblems would be to admit that we have them.



NC ain't shit this year. Illinois beat them Tuesday night 79-67.


----------



## JiggsCasey

mdn2000 said:


> Oil is infinite, in your lifetime, that of your children.



This sentence is incoherent.



mdn2000 said:


> Man is insignificant on earth, unable to control nor change a thing.



This sentence is irrelevant.



mdn2000 said:


> Takes one big head, or one uneducated idiot to think otherwise.



This sentence is ironic.


----------



## mdn2000

Yet, despite all the Oilphobes crying the sky is calling, the world remains powered by oil and the chicken littles have no solution but to use oil ever faster.

Why is the solution to peak oil to use oil faster, why do the environuts propose using more oil to save oil.

Not one proposal saves oil. Not solar nor wind, not geothermal.


----------



## mdn2000

So how is it, not all the oil is discovered or known but the democratic-scientist can make wild claims about something that is unknown.

\Desire Petroleum Plc Share Price Up As Company Makes Oil Discovery



> Share prices at Desire Petroleum plc (LONES) rose up significantly as the company reported that it had made an oil discovery at Falkland Islands. Falkland Islands is one of the territories which belongs to the United Kingdom however being claimed by Argentina. Despite losing in the war, Argentina has continued to claim Falkland Islands.
> 
> The company is expected to complete the wire logging and wireline sampling programme to obtain information about reservoir and the quality to assess the importance of the discovery.
> 
> Desire Petroleum (LONES) expects that there might be a lot more oil and gas findings in the region that could be commercially viable.


----------



## JiggsCasey

mdn2000 said:


> Yet, despite all the Oilphobes crying the sky is calling, the world remains powered by oil and the chicken littles have no solution but to use oil ever faster.
> 
> Why is the solution to peak oil to use oil faster, why do the environuts propose using more oil to save oil.
> 
> Not one proposal saves oil. Not solar nor wind, not geothermal.



What's clear is that you're trying to learn as you go along on this topic.


----------



## mdn2000

JiggsCasey said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, despite all the Oilphobes crying the sky is calling, the world remains powered by oil and the chicken littles have no solution but to use oil ever faster.
> 
> Why is the solution to peak oil to use oil faster, why do the environuts propose using more oil to save oil.
> 
> Not one proposal saves oil. Not solar nor wind, not geothermal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's clear is that you're trying to learn as you go along on this topic.
Click to expand...


What is clear is you have no response, no facts, no theory that can make your point.

What is clear is you have no rebuttal to common sense.

What is clear is the green energy solution uses oil at a faster rate.

Why propose to use more oil to save oil. 

The fact is, green energy is simply a plan to make the middle class poor, to make the politicians more powerful, to give the government control over everyones life, as well as to make corporations extremely rich by increasing demand for oil.

I have presented many facts showing that all green energy sources increase demand for oil, not one has yet to be disproved.

Over and over I prove this and all you can do is ignore the threads, start new threads to bury the proof.

I know what you can do, call me names, that will prove I am wrong.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Baruch Menachem said:


> Well, since oil was created by long extinct organisms millions of years ago, one could argue that "peak oil" has already happened.   As there is no more being created.   We have always been running out of a scarce resource.
> 
> As we continue to run out, the price of the good will gradually increase to points where either it is better to use alternative resources for that particular use, or the cost will become prohibitive for that use.     Either way, as time goes on the price will continually rise.
> 
> Also, there are price levels where we will start to see substitution.
> 
> But you know, I have lived through a long time of people preaching we were going to be out of oil really soon.    Back in the early 70's it was accepted as gospel that all the oil would be gone by 1980.  there is still a lot of oil sloshing around.   It is  a finite resource.   And soon or late we will run out.  And the chicken little types will be able to say "I told you so."   But that date is not yet.



Unless of course if oil is just a natural byproduct of putting rocks under heat and pressure


----------



## loosecannon

mdn2000 said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, despite all the Oilphobes crying the sky is calling, the world remains powered by oil and the chicken littles have no solution but to use oil ever faster.
> 
> Why is the solution to peak oil to use oil faster, why do the environuts propose using more oil to save oil.
> 
> Not one proposal saves oil. Not solar nor wind, not geothermal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's clear is that you're trying to learn as you go along on this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is clear is you have no response, no facts, no theory that can make your point.
> 
> What is clear is you have no rebuttal to common sense.
> 
> What is clear is the green energy solution uses oil at a faster rate.
> 
> Why propose to use more oil to save oil.
> 
> The fact is, green energy is simply a plan to make the middle class poor, to make the politicians more powerful, to give the government control over everyones life, as well as to make corporations extremely rich by increasing demand for oil.
> 
> I have presented many facts showing that all green energy sources increase demand for oil, not one has yet to be disproved.
> 
> Over and over I prove this and all you can do is ignore the threads, start new threads to bury the proof.
> 
> I know what you can do, call me names, that will prove I am wrong.
Click to expand...


what do you call a person who starts with a thesis before he knows a solitary thing about a topic?

mnd2000. 

A world champion at being wrong!


----------



## loosecannon

CrusaderFrank said:


> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since oil was created by long extinct organisms millions of years ago, one could argue that "peak oil" has already happened.   As there is no more being created.   We have always been running out of a scarce resource.
> 
> As we continue to run out, the price of the good will gradually increase to points where either it is better to use alternative resources for that particular use, or the cost will become prohibitive for that use.     Either way, as time goes on the price will continually rise.
> 
> Also, there are price levels where we will start to see substitution.
> 
> But you know, I have lived through a long time of people preaching we were going to be out of oil really soon.    Back in the early 70's it was accepted as gospel that all the oil would be gone by 1980.  there is still a lot of oil sloshing around.   It is  a finite resource.   And soon or late we will run out.  And the chicken little types will be able to say "I told you so."   But that date is not yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless of course if oil is just a natural byproduct of putting rocks under heat and pressure
Click to expand...


money is just the fruit that naturally grows on trees too.

but don't tell anybody!


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

JiggsCasey said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> crusaderfrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> the space program has made a total mockery of the twin notions of "peak oil" and that earth based hydrocarbons are "fossil fuels"
> 
> the planets and even moons are awash in hydrocarbons and there were never dinosaurs on any of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dont tell them that, they wont understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oops... wrong again. Just like we understand that faint traces of alcohol in space are not evidence that Duff beer rains down from the heavens.
> 
> Grow up, and think before posting.
> 
> What's most interesting in threads like this is that anti-peak bloviators from both camps never lock horns against eachother.  Some of you admit oil is finite (Samson), while others insist it's abiotic and infinite (this genius above).
> 
> Yet, you'll never openly dispute eachother. All you think you know is that there is no problem, and the IEA is somehow lying to the world. ... Nevermind the skyrocketing cost of food, fuel and consumer goods, and the growing insolvency of U.S. states and sovereign nations. That's all just caused by the U.S. mortgage crisis, and nothing deeper. LOL.
> 
> To you guys, if you just spend endless sums of money to drill dry holes and pray really hard, God will just put more oil in the ground.
Click to expand...


There are oceans of chemicals  in  space Water alcohol methane ,
Just because you are posting on the internet it doesnt mean you are an expert. Your posts prove you are not.


----------



## mdn2000

loosecannon said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's clear is that you're trying to learn as you go along on this topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is clear is you have no response, no facts, no theory that can make your point.
> 
> What is clear is you have no rebuttal to common sense.
> 
> What is clear is the green energy solution uses oil at a faster rate.
> 
> Why propose to use more oil to save oil.
> 
> The fact is, green energy is simply a plan to make the middle class poor, to make the politicians more powerful, to give the government control over everyones life, as well as to make corporations extremely rich by increasing demand for oil.
> 
> I have presented many facts showing that all green energy sources increase demand for oil, not one has yet to be disproved.
> 
> Over and over I prove this and all you can do is ignore the threads, start new threads to bury the proof.
> 
> I know what you can do, call me names, that will prove I am wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what do you call a person who starts with a thesis before he knows a solitary thing about a topic?
> 
> mnd2000.
> 
> A world champion at being wrong!
Click to expand...


I feel righteous when the attack is personal, my facts stand unchallenged in yet another post, thank you.


----------



## JiggsCasey

mdn2000 said:


> What is clear is you have no response, no facts, no theory that can make your point.



Actually, this subforum is drenched in my facts, and I never run out of response to flat-earth bloviators like you. Don't kid yourself. 



mdn2000 said:


> What is clear is you have no rebuttal to common sense.



No greater irony has ever been uttered in the history of this site. The "common sense" card from a "drill baby drill", hope-based zealot? That's rich.



mdn2000 said:


> What is clear is the green energy solution uses oil at a faster rate.



Perhaps to build. But once the infrastructure is built and in place, then your short-sighted argument swirls down the toilet. 

For the 12th time, no one is saying that renewables will save us. Only mitigate the crisis and perhaps buy a bit of time for future generations. Grow up, and try and be honest about your opponents' argument. Liar.



mdn2000 said:


> Why propose to use more oil to save oil.



Because with time, there is little choice. You can enact this transition willfully, or mother nature will take care of it for you at much greater shock.



mdn2000 said:


> The fact is, green energy is simply a plan to make the middle class poor, to make the politicians more powerful, to give the government control over everyones life, as well as to make corporations extremely rich by increasing demand for oil.



Emptiness, supported by extrapolation. What a whiney partisan loser. People like you are, ultimately, an enemy to humanity, because you can never be intellectually honest about what is at stake here. Nothing receives greater federal subsidy than the oil giants you so admire.



mdn2000 said:


> I have presented many facts showing that all green energy sources increase demand for oil, not one has yet to be disproved.



No you haven't. Regardless, when dealing with me, your enemy isn't "green energy." Your enemy is simply peak. Don't straw man my position, desperate little Palin-ite. Oil is running down, prices will spike, and supply contraints are undeniable. Debate that, or stop talking.



mdn2000 said:


> Over and over I prove this and all you can do is ignore the threads, start new threads to bury the proof.



You're fucking retarded. Can you even keep track of who you're arguing with? What was the last thread I created in this forum? Months ago? 

Further, let's be clear: I don't ignore your tripe if it's relevant to my argument. Try and focus, angry con.



mdn2000 said:


> I know what you can do, call me names, that will prove I am wrong.



No, the labels you earn are self-evident. 

What I "can do" is keep pushing your face in the facts. Fats like 34 of 51 oil producing nations are past peak, the IEA and Joint Chiefs admit a 10 mbpd shortfall in light crude by 2015, that we use 4 barrels today for every 1 barrel we discover, and that demand continues to rise while no one knows where the near-term future capacity is going to come from. Then simply watch you squirm and avoid and deflect and distort and create little straw men.

You can't deny the geology, just like your limited ally, Samson. Better get used to it, because "blaming government" and liberals for it all isn't convincing anyone of anything.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

loosecannon said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since oil was created by long extinct organisms millions of years ago, one could argue that "peak oil" has already happened.   As there is no more being created.   We have always been running out of a scarce resource.
> 
> As we continue to run out, the price of the good will gradually increase to points where either it is better to use alternative resources for that particular use, or the cost will become prohibitive for that use.     Either way, as time goes on the price will continually rise.
> 
> Also, there are price levels where we will start to see substitution.
> 
> But you know, I have lived through a long time of people preaching we were going to be out of oil really soon.    Back in the early 70's it was accepted as gospel that all the oil would be gone by 1980.  there is still a lot of oil sloshing around.   It is  a finite resource.   And soon or late we will run out.  And the chicken little types will be able to say "I told you so."   But that date is not yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless of course if oil is just a natural byproduct of putting rocks under heat and pressure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> money is just the fruit that naturally grows on trees too.
> 
> but don't tell anybody!
Click to expand...


Be fucking ignorant all you want, the Soviets got hydrocarbons by putting marble, rust and water under heat and pressure.  Thems the facts and there wasn't a dead dino anywhere near the experiment


----------



## JiggsCasey

CrusaderFrank said:


> Be fucking ignorant all you want, the Soviets got hydrocarbons by putting marble, rust and water under heat and pressure.  Thems the facts and there wasn't a dead dino anywhere near the experiment



And beer rains from the heavens. 

Get back to us when your new heroes, the "Soviets" use marble, rust, water and heat to create 85 million barrels per day of equivalent. Or, just a tenth of it.

Until then, STFU, and GTFO.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JiggsCasey said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be fucking ignorant all you want, the Soviets got hydrocarbons by putting marble, rust and water under heat and pressure.  Thems the facts and there wasn't a dead dino anywhere near the experiment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And beer rains from the heavens.
> 
> Get back to us when your new heroes, the "Soviets" use marble, rust, water and heat to create 85 million barrels per day of equivalent. Or, just a tenth of it.
> 
> Until then, STFU, and GTFO.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry you were lied to your whole life about fossil fuels. It sucks. But at a certain age, you need to man up and face the facts: there is no such thing as fossil fuels.

We're on a planet jackoff, a planet and it would have made hyrdocarbons, just like almost every other planet and Moon in this system, even if there were never any velicoraptors.  Get a clue. Think for yourself. Use some common sense


----------



## JiggsCasey

CrusaderFrank said:


> I'm sorry you were lied to your whole life about fossil fuels. It sucks. But at a certain age, you need to man up and face the facts: there is no such thing as fossil fuels.
> 
> We're on a planet jackoff, a planet and it would have made hyrdocarbons, just like almost every other planet and Moon in this system, even if there were never any velicoraptors.  Get a clue. Think for yourself. Use some common sense



Ah yes, the "common sense" card again, from someone who glosses over when presented with a chemical equation. 

Anyhow, let's pretend your new heroes, 1950s Soviet scientists who've been long-since debunked by peer-reviewed papers, are somehow correct.  Great... Where is it then? If it's infinite, where is it in any semblance of abundance?

Ooops. There goes your ultimate argument. <flush>


----------



## westwall

"Peak Oil" is a myth perpetrated by the very oil companies you claim are trying to prevent technological innovation to get us off of fossil fuels.  The reason why they perpetuate the myth is to drive prices up.  Duh!  Internal memo's were released a few years ago that provided ample evidence of this.

Added to that are the well known discoveries of oil fields that are recharging, such as the Eugene Island 330 field wich began producing 15k barrels of oil per day with reserves of 60 million barrels and subsequently dropped to 4k barrels per day then quite literally overnight began producing 13k barrels per day and the reserve jumped to 400 million barrels.  It was also found that the new oil was a different geologic period.

The Middle East has more than DOUBLED its reserves in the last 20 years despite the fact that there has been a 50 year period of intense exploitation.

There was a man (I think his name was Gold) years ago who came up with the theory that oil was created deep underground by temperature and pressure and then percolated up to the surface where we grabbed it.   There was a test hole drilled several years ago in the middle of a kraton somewhere to test the theory and they did in fact find a small amount of oil very deep.  I don't recall the depth it was found but it was over 15,000 feet.  This, in the middle of a continental granitic body...not in sedimentary rock.


----------



## mdn2000

JiggsCasey said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is clear is you have no response, no facts, no theory that can make your point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, this subforum is drenched in my facts, and I never run out of response to flat-earth bloviators like you. Don't kid yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is clear is you have no rebuttal to common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No greater irony has ever been uttered in the history of this site. The "common sense" card from a "drill baby drill", hope-based zealot? That's rich.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps to build. But once the infrastructure is built and in place, then your short-sighted argument swirls down the toilet.
> 
> For the 12th time, no one is saying that renewables will save us. Only mitigate the crisis and perhaps buy a bit of time for future generations. Grow up, and try and be honest about your opponents' argument. Liar.
> 
> 
> 
> Because with time, there is little choice. You can enact this transition willfully, or mother nature will take care of it for you at much greater shock.
> 
> 
> 
> Emptiness, supported by extrapolation. What a whiney partisan loser. People like you are, ultimately, an enemy to humanity, because you can never be intellectually honest about what is at stake here. Nothing receives greater federal subsidy than the oil giants you so admire.
> 
> 
> 
> No you haven't. Regardless, when dealing with me, your enemy isn't "green energy." Your enemy is simply peak. Don't straw man my position, desperate little Palin-ite. Oil is running down, prices will spike, and supply contraints are undeniable. Debate that, or stop talking.
> 
> 
> 
> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Over and over I prove this and all you can do is ignore the threads, start new threads to bury the proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're fucking retarded. Can you even keep track of who you're arguing with? What was the last thread I created in this forum? Months ago?
> 
> Further, let's be clear: I don't ignore your tripe if it's relevant to my argument. Try and focus, angry con.
> 
> 
> 
> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know what you can do, call me names, that will prove I am wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the labels you earn are self-evident.
> 
> What I "can do" is keep pushing your face in the facts. Fats like 34 of 51 oil producing nations are past peak, the IEA and Joint Chiefs admit a 10 mbpd shortfall in light crude by 2015, that we use 4 barrels today for every 1 barrel we discover, and that demand continues to rise while no one knows where the near-term future capacity is going to come from. Then simply watch you squirm and avoid and deflect and distort and create little straw men.
> 
> You can't deny the geology, just like your limited ally, Samson. Better get used to it, because "blaming government" and liberals for it all isn't convincing anyone of anything.
Click to expand...




> Perhaps to build. But once the infrastructure is built and in place, then your short-sighted argument swirls down the toilet.



No perhaps, fact, you use more oil to produce less energy, you admit this, so explain why its better to use more oil at a faster rate. 



> For the 12th time, no one is saying that renewables will save us. Only mitigate the crisis and perhaps buy a bit of time for future generations.



Using oil faster mitigates the crisis, how.



> Emptiness, supported by extrapolation. What a whiney partisan loser. People like you are, ultimately, an enemy to humanity, because you can never be intellectually honest about what is at stake here. Nothing receives greater federal subsidy than the oil giants you so admire.



The Oil industry was built with subsidies, not at all. What is a fact is we are building Wind Farms and Solar plants with subsidies, the complete infrastructure for Green energy is subsidized, not only that but we must replace everything from power lines to the meters in our homes, all for Green Energy, all this will take even more oil, again depleting oil faster than if we did nothing. 

I am partisan, if trying to keep money in my pocket is partisan I am more than happy to be called partisan, thank you, that is a compliment.

If you have all these great threads, bump one to the top of the forum, I will be more than happy to take a look and comment.

I am proud to be partisan, those who are right should stay firm in their position. 

So you wish to speak of individual nations, or states, or a well, that is past its peak and ignore the rest of the world which has not been explored, that is a straw man argument.

wow, talk about pushing my face into the facts.


----------



## JiggsCasey

westwall said:


> "Peak Oil" is a myth perpetrated by the very oil companies you claim are trying to prevent technological innovation to get us off of fossil fuels.  The reason why they perpetuate the myth is to drive prices up.  Duh!  Internal memo's were released a few years ago that provided ample evidence of this.



That's quite a statement. Why don't you provide that link, rather than insist we trust your claim on face value. What context? I'll put even money that your "ample evidence" is completely irrelevant when it comes to global flow rates. This is always the case. 

Your camp constantly cites mole hills in order to assert the condition of mountains, ... rinse repeat. It's what you do.

I look forward to your link of this "internal memo", and putting it in proper perspective. Prices get "driven up" for a lot of things. That does nothing to dispel the basic math of overall resource depletion. Zero.



westwall said:


> Added to that are the well known discoveries of oil fields that are recharging, such as the Eugene Island 330 field wich began producing 15k barrels of oil per day with reserves of 60 million barrels and subsequently dropped to 4k barrels per day then quite literally overnight began producing 13k barrels per day and the reserve jumped to 400 million barrels.  It was also found that the new oil was a different geologic period.



And here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about above. It's always funny watching abiotic advocates squawk about ONE pool containing 5 days worth of energy, suddenly experiencing a brief uptick as a result of fault migration, as evidence that ALL global fields just magically fill up. It's sorta like when they pretend climate change is a myth because of a New England snow storm in late April. Unfortunately, after a very short increase, that tiny pool is still dying... rapidly. Like most of the rest. .... We find 1 new barrel for every 4 we consume today. That's a problem, and won't last much longer.

Here's Richard Heinberg crushing the tired old Eugene Island claim, as he always does with "reserve growth" claims:

The ?Abiotic Oil? Controversy | Energy Bulletin

_ While it is true that the estimated oil reserves of Eugene have increased, *the numbers are not extraordinary.* The authors note that &#8220;From 1978 to 1988, these operations, activities, and natural factors [including better exploration and recovery technology] have increased ultimate recoverable reserves from 225 million bbl to 307 million bbl of hydrocarbon liquids and from 950 bcf to 1.65 tcf of gas.&#8221; Other estimates now put the estimate of total recoverable oil as high as 400 Mb.

*None of this is especially unusual for a North American oil field:* most fields report reserve growth over time as a consequence of Securities and Exchange Commission reporting rules that require reserves to be booked yearly according to what portion of the resource is actually able to be extracted with current equipment in place. *As more wells are drilled into the same reservoir, the reserves &#8220;grow.&#8221; Then, as they are pumped out, reserves decline and production rates dwindle. No magic there*. _​
Do better.



westwall said:


> The Middle East has more than DOUBLED its reserves in the last 20 years despite the fact that there has been a 50 year period of intense exploitation.



OPEC: "What? You're buying elsewhere? Suddenly, we have lots more oil!"
People like you: "Good enough for me! Where do we sign?"

OPEC nations sell their oil according to quotas, which are based partially on their reported reserves. The more reserves a nation reports, the more oil it is allowed to sell. This particular quota system went into effect in the 1980s, and almost immediately all OPEC nations&#8217; oil reserves jumped significantly. These nations have a direct, vested interest in exaggerating their reserves, not only to make more money, but because petroleum income directly translates into regional power. 






Gosh, look at those sudden vertical jumps, in succession, by OPEC nations in the 1980s? Sure looks like an accounting gimmick to me. 

In addition, adding tens of billions to reserve totals because you believe dirty, heavy shale and tar sands is the same as light crude is also vastly misleading. Heavy oils are not cost effective, and unlikely ever will be.



westwall said:


> There was a man (I think his name was Gold) years ago who came up with the theory that oil was created deep underground by temperature and pressure and then percolated up to the surface where we grabbed it.   There was a test hole drilled several years ago in the middle of a kraton somewhere to test the theory and they did in fact find a small amount of oil very deep.  I don't recall the depth it was found but it was over 15,000 feet.  This, in the middle of a continental granitic body...not in sedimentary rock.



Yeah, his name is Thomas Gold, he's the author of "The Deep Hot Biosphere," and his work has been thoroughly peer-reviewed and crushed. Welcome to the discussion with your west coast slow pony, though. Gold's irrelevant work has been covered here and put into perspective.

Finding traces of methane in the earth's core does not mean the enormous quantities of crude oil that we consume is abiotic, nor infinite, .... just like finding traces of alcohol in space doesn't mean vodka comes from the sky.

Even if the stuff IS abiotic, great! Where the 'F' is it then? The USGS and the IEA would surely love to know. As would all big oil producers and sovereign governments. Your ploy is irrelevant. We're debating peak oil, not the endless debate of how oil originates. The question remains: If there's somehow "plenty," where is it? In what amount?

Show the proven reserve data, admit global consumption rates up against the figures you think you have, and we can have a starting point for discussion. Until then, your entire platform is hope-based, and void of hard math.


----------



## westwall

JiggsCasey said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Peak Oil" is a myth perpetrated by the very oil companies you claim are trying to prevent technological innovation to get us off of fossil fuels.  The reason why they perpetuate the myth is to drive prices up.  Duh!  Internal memo's were released a few years ago that provided ample evidence of this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a statement. Why don't you provide that link, rather than insist we trust your claim on face value. What context? I'll put even money that your "ample evidence" is completely irrelevant when it comes to global flow rates. This is always the case.
> 
> Your camp constantly cites mole hills in order to assert the condition of mountains, ... rinse repeat. It's what you do.
> 
> I look forward to your link of this "internal memo", and putting it in proper perspective. Prices get "driven up" for a lot of things. That does nothing to dispel the basic math of overall resource depletion. Zero.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Added to that are the well known discoveries of oil fields that are recharging, such as the Eugene Island 330 field wich began producing 15k barrels of oil per day with reserves of 60 million barrels and subsequently dropped to 4k barrels per day then quite literally overnight began producing 13k barrels per day and the reserve jumped to 400 million barrels.  It was also found that the new oil was a different geologic period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about above. It's always funny watching abiotic advocates squawk about ONE pool containing 5 days worth of energy, suddenly experiencing a brief uptick as a result of fault migration, as evidence that ALL global fields just magically fill up. It's sorta like when they pretend climate change is a myth because of a New England snow storm in late April. Unfortunately, after a very short increase, that tiny pool is still dying... rapidly. Like most of the rest. .... We find 1 new barrel for every 4 we consume today. That's a problem, and won't last much longer.
> 
> Here's Richard Heinberg crushing the tired old Eugene Island claim, as he always does with "reserve growth" claims:
> 
> The ?Abiotic Oil? Controversy | Energy Bulletin
> 
> _ While it is true that the estimated oil reserves of Eugene have increased, *the numbers are not extraordinary.* The authors note that &#8220;From 1978 to 1988, these operations, activities, and natural factors [including better exploration and recovery technology] have increased ultimate recoverable reserves from 225 million bbl to 307 million bbl of hydrocarbon liquids and from 950 bcf to 1.65 tcf of gas.&#8221; Other estimates now put the estimate of total recoverable oil as high as 400 Mb.
> 
> *None of this is especially unusual for a North American oil field:* most fields report reserve growth over time as a consequence of Securities and Exchange Commission reporting rules that require reserves to be booked yearly according to what portion of the resource is actually able to be extracted with current equipment in place. *As more wells are drilled into the same reservoir, the reserves &#8220;grow.&#8221; Then, as they are pumped out, reserves decline and production rates dwindle. No magic there*. _​
> Do better.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Middle East has more than DOUBLED its reserves in the last 20 years despite the fact that there has been a 50 year period of intense exploitation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OPEC: "What? You're buying elsewhere? Suddenly, we have lots more oil!"
> People like you: "Good enough for me! Where do we sign?"
> 
> OPEC nations sell their oil according to quotas, which are based partially on their reported reserves. The more reserves a nation reports, the more oil it is allowed to sell. This particular quota system went into effect in the 1980s, and almost immediately all OPEC nations&#8217; oil reserves jumped significantly. These nations have a direct, vested interest in exaggerating their reserves, not only to make more money, but because petroleum income directly translates into regional power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh, look at those sudden vertical jumps, in succession, by OPEC nations in the 1980s? Sure looks like an accounting gimmick to me.
> 
> In addition, adding tens of billions to reserve totals because you believe dirty, heavy shale and tar sands is the same as light crude is also vastly misleading. Heavy oils are not cost effective, and unlikely ever will be.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was a man (I think his name was Gold) years ago who came up with the theory that oil was created deep underground by temperature and pressure and then percolated up to the surface where we grabbed it.   There was a test hole drilled several years ago in the middle of a kraton somewhere to test the theory and they did in fact find a small amount of oil very deep.  I don't recall the depth it was found but it was over 15,000 feet.  This, in the middle of a continental granitic body...not in sedimentary rock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, his name is Thomas Gold, he's the author of "The Deep Hot Biosphere," and his work has been thoroughly peer-reviewed and crushed. Welcome to the discussion with your west coast slow pony, though. Gold's irrelevant work has been covered here and put into perspective.
> 
> Finding traces of methane in the earth's core does not mean the enormous quantities of crude oil that we consume is abiotic, nor infinite, .... just like finding traces of alcohol in space doesn't mean vodka comes from the sky.
> 
> Even if the stuff IS abiotic, great! Where the 'F' is it then? The USGS and the IEA would surely love to know. As would all big oil producers and sovereign governments. Your ploy is irrelevant. We're debating peak oil, not the endless debate of how oil originates. The question remains: If there's somehow "plenty," where is it? In what amount?
> 
> Show the proven reserve data, admit global consumption rates up against the figures you think you have, and we can have a starting point for discussion. Until then, your entire platform is hope-based, and void of hard math.
Click to expand...





Yes that's the name I remember.  So the fact that methane was found where it categorically should not exist is meaningless?  Where to find it?  Probably where it allready is.  I find the little missive about reserves growing as more wells are drilled to be a little odd.  Then claiming that the reserves are based on SEC reporting requirements is a little disingenuous, don't you think?

Here is one of the memo's 

http://cwd.grassroots.com/energy/rp/4302.pdf

And many more can be found here....

The Foundation For Taxpayer & Consumer Rights (FTCR)

Knock yourself out, there are plenty of reports and memo's showing collusion between government and the oil companies to increase the price of fuel across the board.

And for the record I am not an abiotic advocate, I do find it interesting that people like you completely denigrate it when a pool of energy was found where none should have been.  According to every theory of hydrocarbon production what was found should not have been.  On the other hand the only people with anything to lose if that theory is accurate, is you and yours, and the oil companies.

I merely would like to see another hole drilled someplace else to see if it happens again.  That is after all the essence of science you know..repeatability.  Or put another way, you folks have been warning us about hitting peak oil for oh over 50 years now, and we still havn't hit it, no matter how you keep defining and re-defining what peak oil is.  And here is little old Mr. Gold (did he even have a PhD?) predicting hydrocarbons would be found where they shouldn't and looky here he did it.  Gold is batting 1,000 and you guys are batting 0.000.


----------



## mdn2000

Where is the peak oil thread with all the wonderful facts Jiggs, I saw the link to Tar and Dinosaurs in the energy forum, how about something real, right here. 

Jiggs keeps claiming Jiggs has the facts, post a name of the theory, the author and his paper. 

Jiggs knows that facts as told by an author of an article of a paper that Jiggs refuses to post.

I guess Jiggs says its so, so its so, most likely anything posted will be the same, "see I said it, its so"


----------



## JiggsCasey

mdn2000 said:


> Where is the peak oil thread with all the wonderful facts Jiggs, I saw the link to Tar and Dinosaurs in the energy forum, how about something real, right here.
> 
> Jiggs keeps claiming Jiggs has the facts, post a name of the theory, the author and his paper.
> 
> Jiggs knows that facts as told by an author of an article of a paper that Jiggs refuses to post.
> 
> I guess Jiggs says its so, so its so, most likely anything posted will be the same, "see I said it, its so"



Tool. Look to the other parallel thread where you make the same tired, baseless pronouncement. 

I've posted this subject matter all over this subforum, with dozens of links.

The "authors" I cite are the IEA, the Joint Chiefs, the US Dept. of Energy, the EIA, Total Oil, Oxford Univ., Lloyds of London. Perhaps they're all in on this "vast conspiracy" you guys insinuate. LOL.

It is both a near and longterm crisis.

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


----------



## JiggsCasey

westwall said:


> Yes that's the name I remember.  So the fact that methane was found where it categorically should not exist is meaningless?  Where to find it?  Probably where it allready is.  I find the little missive about reserves growing as more wells are drilled to be a little odd.  Then claiming that the reserves are based on SEC reporting requirements is a little disingenuous, don't you think?
> 
> Here is one of the memo's
> 
> http://cwd.grassroots.com/energy/rp/4302.pdf
> 
> And many more can be found here....
> 
> The Foundation For Taxpayer & Consumer Rights (FTCR)
> 
> Knock yourself out, there are plenty of reports and memo's showing collusion between government and the oil companies to increase the price of fuel across the board.
> 
> And for the record I am not an abiotic advocate, I do find it interesting that people like you completely denigrate it when a pool of energy was found where none should have been.  According to every theory of hydrocarbon production what was found should not have been.  On the other hand the only people with anything to lose if that theory is accurate, is you and yours, and the oil companies.
> 
> I merely would like to see another hole drilled someplace else to see if it happens again.  That is after all the essence of science you know..repeatability.  Or put another way, you folks have been warning us about hitting peak oil for oh over 50 years now, and we still havn't hit it, no matter how you keep defining and re-defining what peak oil is.  And here is little old Mr. Gold (did he even have a PhD?) predicting hydrocarbons would be found where they shouldn't and looky here he did it.  Gold is batting 1,000 and you guys are batting 0.000.



You didn't answer a single one of my questions, just created more irrelevant "abiotic vs. biotic" loop. 

Here, I'll re-iterate them for you to ignore again:

_Even if the stuff IS abiotic, great! Where the 'F' is it then? The USGS and the IEA would surely love to know. As would all big oil producers and sovereign governments. Your ploy is irrelevant. We're debating peak oil, not the endless debate of how oil originates. The question remains: If there's somehow "plenty," where is it? In what amount?_​
You and Soviet-science sympathizer Tom Gold can pretend you've found a 5 trllion barrel reservoir 500 miles under the earth. Great. But if we can't get to it, who gives a crap?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JiggsCasey said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry you were lied to your whole life about fossil fuels. It sucks. But at a certain age, you need to man up and face the facts: there is no such thing as fossil fuels.
> 
> We're on a planet jackoff, a planet and it would have made hyrdocarbons, just like almost every other planet and Moon in this system, even if there were never any velicoraptors.  Get a clue. Think for yourself. Use some common sense
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, the "common sense" card again, from someone who glosses over when presented with a chemical equation.
> 
> Anyhow, let's pretend your new heroes, 1950s Soviet scientists who've been long-since debunked by peer-reviewed papers, are somehow correct.  Great... Where is it then? If it's infinite, where is it in any semblance of abundance?
> 
> Ooops. There goes your ultimate argument. <flush>
Click to expand...


What chemical equation? What the fuck are you talking about?

If oil comes from dead dinosaurs how come oil companies aren't putting animal carcasses under heat and pressure to make light sweet crude?


----------



## westwall

JiggsCasey said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes that's the name I remember.  So the fact that methane was found where it categorically should not exist is meaningless?  Where to find it?  Probably where it allready is.  I find the little missive about reserves growing as more wells are drilled to be a little odd.  Then claiming that the reserves are based on SEC reporting requirements is a little disingenuous, don't you think?
> 
> Here is one of the memo's
> 
> http://cwd.grassroots.com/energy/rp/4302.pdf
> 
> And many more can be found here....
> 
> The Foundation For Taxpayer & Consumer Rights (FTCR)
> 
> Knock yourself out, there are plenty of reports and memo's showing collusion between government and the oil companies to increase the price of fuel across the board.
> 
> And for the record I am not an abiotic advocate, I do find it interesting that people like you completely denigrate it when a pool of energy was found where none should have been.  According to every theory of hydrocarbon production what was found should not have been.  On the other hand the only people with anything to lose if that theory is accurate, is you and yours, and the oil companies.
> 
> I merely would like to see another hole drilled someplace else to see if it happens again.  That is after all the essence of science you know..repeatability.  Or put another way, you folks have been warning us about hitting peak oil for oh over 50 years now, and we still havn't hit it, no matter how you keep defining and re-defining what peak oil is.  And here is little old Mr. Gold (did he even have a PhD?) predicting hydrocarbons would be found where they shouldn't and looky here he did it.  Gold is batting 1,000 and you guys are batting 0.000.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer a single one of my questions, just created more irrelevant "abiotic vs. biotic" loop.
> 
> Here, I'll re-iterate them for you to ignore again:
> 
> _Even if the stuff IS abiotic, great! Where the 'F' is it then? The USGS and the IEA would surely love to know. As would all big oil producers and sovereign governments. Your ploy is irrelevant. We're debating peak oil, not the endless debate of how oil originates. The question remains: If there's somehow "plenty," where is it? In what amount?_​
> You and Soviet-science sympathizer Tom Gold can pretend you've found a 5 trllion barrel reservoir 500 miles under the earth. Great. But if we can't get to it, who gives a crap?
Click to expand...





I did answer your question or can't you read?  I said you will probably find it where it allrerady is.  In other words drill in the old fields and see what happens.  More importantly I would like to see another hole drilled in the middle of nowhere to see what happens.  Don't you?  Aren't you even the slightest bit curious?  You are the person being anti science here.  I am at least curious, why aren't you? 

 In what way was Gold a Soviet science sympathizer (whatever the hell that means) and what relevance does that exactly have on the subject?  Or are you just trying to tar Gold with bad juju to make your argument stronger?  So far you have been the person to resort to non-sequiter, and that is a sure sign you don't know a thing about which you speak.


----------



## mdn2000

JiggsCasey said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the peak oil thread with all the wonderful facts Jiggs, I saw the link to Tar and Dinosaurs in the energy forum, how about something real, right here.
> 
> Jiggs keeps claiming Jiggs has the facts, post a name of the theory, the author and his paper.
> 
> Jiggs knows that facts as told by an author of an article of a paper that Jiggs refuses to post.
> 
> I guess Jiggs says its so, so its so, most likely anything posted will be the same, "see I said it, its so"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tool. Look to the other parallel thread where you make the same tired, baseless pronouncement.
> 
> I've posted this subject matter all over this subforum, with dozens of links.
> 
> The "authors" I cite are the IEA, the Joint Chiefs, the US Dept. of Energy, the EIA, Total Oil, Oxford Univ., Lloyds of London. Perhaps they're all in on this "vast conspiracy" you guys insinuate. LOL.
> 
> It is both a near and longterm crisis.
> 
> [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUVY2qrEfd8[/ame]
Click to expand...


I dont play youtube videos in the threads, if I want TV I will turn on the TV and watch a sitcom.

You posted dozens of links, well you directed me to your "Links" in three threads, the page you linked to in the thread, had no links to, "Peak Oil theory".

You are pretty delusional if you think I am going to search hundreds, if not thousands of posts to find your supposed "link".

That where Jiggs directed me did not contain the information shows me that Jiggs is just full of shit and wasting my time, which is fine, Jiggs cannot post a link or start a thread on peak oil.

I dont blame you Jiggs, why provide the truth to prove there is no Peak Oil theory that can stand up to us, "Cons".


----------



## JiggsCasey

westwall said:


> I did answer your question or can't you read?  I said *you will probably find it where it allrerady is*.  In other words drill in the old fields and see what happens.



Unrivaled fail. That's one too many "probablies" in your statement. In other words, you have no idea where the new oil will come from. But you HOPE the old fields have "filled up" like one tiny field in the Gulf did 20 years ago... Zzz.



westwall said:


> More importantly I would like to see another hole drilled in the middle of nowhere to see what happens.  Don't you?  Aren't you even the slightest bit curious?  You are the person being anti science here.  I am at least curious, why aren't you?



Because it costs enormous amounts of capital to just drill dry holes in the ground everywhere. You understand the process, yes?



westwall said:


> In what way was Gold a Soviet science sympathizer (whatever the hell that means) and what relevance does that exactly have on the subject?  Or are you just trying to tar Gold with bad juju to make your argument stronger?  So far you have been the person to resort to non-sequiter, and that is a sure sign you don't know a thing about which you speak.



If you actually read Gold's book, you would know that abiotic theory is rooted in the research of a rogue group of Soviet scientists from the 50s desperate to counter the West's encroaching paradigm. It's been peer-reviewed, and put in perspective. Gold can suggest oil is abiotic by only the lamest extrapolation that traces of methane were found deep under the earth's crust. Again, that hardly means the 2 trillion barrels of the stuff comes from the mantle of the Earth, and far more evidence exists that it is biotic in origin -- mostly plant life. As mentioned before, It's really irrelevant either way, considering no one knows where it's going to come from going forward. That's what we're discussing.


----------



## JiggsCasey

mdn2000 said:


> I dont play youtube videos in the threads, if I want TV I will turn on the TV and watch a sitcom.



Of course you don't. Because then you'd have to acknowledge how utter fail your argument is and conjure up some new bullshit reason why those petrol geologists are somehow "wrong." By pretending you're too important to actually educate yourself and watch a 7-minute news interview, you can perpetuate your tired, hope-based fairy tale and remain blissfully ignorant. Then just keep squawking "prove it!... what?? so? ... prove it more!!!"

My God, are you guys horrible at this. You're all so desperate to pretend this is a partisan problem, when it's instead a geological and population problem. Two things the Christian Right are never able to acknowledge.

There are 5 stages of grief, and you guys remain stuck in the first two stages - denial and anger. We'll be over here at acceptance, mulling solutions.


----------



## westwall

JiggsCasey said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did answer your question or can't you read?  I said *you will probably find it where it allrerady is*.  In other words drill in the old fields and see what happens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unrivaled fail. That's one too many "probablies" in your statement. In other words, you have no idea where the new oil will come from. But you HOPE the old fields have "filled up" like one tiny field in the Gulf did 20 years ago... Zzz.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> More importantly I would like to see another hole drilled in the middle of nowhere to see what happens.  Don't you?  Aren't you even the slightest bit curious?  You are the person being anti science here.  I am at least curious, why aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it costs enormous amounts of capital to just drill dry holes in the ground everywhere. You understand the process, yes?
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> In what way was Gold a Soviet science sympathizer (whatever the hell that means) and what relevance does that exactly have on the subject?  Or are you just trying to tar Gold with bad juju to make your argument stronger?  So far you have been the person to resort to non-sequiter, and that is a sure sign you don't know a thing about which you speak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you actually read Gold's book, you would know that abiotic theory is rooted in the research of a rogue group of Soviet scientists from the 50s desperate to counter the West's encroaching paradigm. It's been peer-reviewed, and put in perspective. Gold can suggest oil is abiotic by only the lamest extrapolation that traces of methane were found deep under the earth's crust. Again, that hardly means the 2 trillion barrels of the stuff comes from the mantle of the Earth, and far more evidence exists that it is biotic in origin -- mostly plant life. As mentioned before, It's really irrelevant either way, considering no one knows where it's going to come from going forward. That's what we're discussing.
Click to expand...





In order, if oil was found in one area and oil is truly abiotic then it stands to reason that you will find it there again.  That is following a basic rule of science.  It is called Occams Razor, look it up.

Second, yes I've actually been to rig in operation...have you?

Third, I've never read his book so you'll have to excuse my ignorance on the "secret rogue Soviet agent" thing which is irrelevant.  Also it seems to me you have the order backward.  Gold developed his hypothesis, then used that to get the funds to drill the hole in the middle of nowhere.  If I recall correctly the oil companies didn't fund that.  If there was an oil company involved which one was it?  That would be intersting to me.

So once again we are at the usual impasse.  You folks have been making claims for 50 years that so far have not borne fruit, Gold developed a hypothesis and proved it in the only test hole he was allowed to drill.

Gold 1.000  vs   Peak Oil 0.000  So who is the epic fail here?


----------



## JiggsCasey

westwall said:


> In order, if oil was found in one area and oil is truly abiotic then it stands to reason that you will find it there again.  That is following a basic rule of science.  It is called Occams Razor, look it up.



Occams Razor is not a "rule of science," genius. It is a general suggestion towards a hypothesis. If you want to talk about rules of science, your Eugene Island anomaly really winds up being embarrassing for you. Try the basic laws of thermodynamics. Those are rules. There is no varience, no nuance, "no tends to be" qualifiers.

I'll ask you once more, and hopefully you'll do better than "let's blindly drill and find out!":

Where is the oil going forward that will make up for existing dying capacity?

If you can't point to proven reserves found by advanced seismic technology exploration, please stop posting. Because you appear to be just another hope-based flat earther, who can't recognize the symptoms of a world MUCH sicker than 30-50 years ago.

You can pretend the people of 50 years ago are "me" all you like. I can tell the profound differences between then and today, but clearly you can't. Not surprising, considering you feel "Occam's Razor" is a "rule of science."


----------



## CrusaderFrank

So wait a second. If we never had dinosaurs, Earth would never make any hydrocarbons? LOL? Seriously?


----------



## westwall

JiggsCasey said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> In order, if oil was found in one area and oil is truly abiotic then it stands to reason that you will find it there again.  That is following a basic rule of science.  It is called Occams Razor, look it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Occams Razor is not a "rule of science," genius. It is a general suggestion towards a hypothesis. If you want to talk about rules of science, your Eugene Island anomaly really winds up being embarrassing for you. Try the basic laws of thermodynamics. Those are rules. There is no varience, no nuance, "no tends to be" qualifiers.
> 
> I'll ask you once more, and hopefully you'll do better than "let's blindly drill and find out!":
> 
> Where is the oil going forward that will make up for existing dying capacity?
> 
> If you can't point to proven reserves found by advanced seismic technology exploration, please stop posting. Because you appear to be just another hope-based flat earther, who can't recognize the symptoms of a world MUCH sicker than 30-50 years ago.
> 
> You can pretend the people of 50 years ago are "me" all you like. I can tell the profound differences between then and today, but clearly you can't. Not surprising, considering you feel "Occam's Razor" is a "rule of science."
Click to expand...




Occams Razor is a rule of science nimrod, it ranks right up there with "correlation does not equal causation".  

Eugene Island is not a singular event either, Mexican Hat recharges on average every 20 years or so.  It is a small field so internet "experts" will have never heard of it.  You may have heard of the Aneth oil field however, and it too has exhibited some recharge.  

The Laws of Thermodynamics are of course unalterable and when you can point out to their relevance for this particular argument please feel free to enlighten us otherwise see post above about pointless insults.

One other thing you need to know about science, because you clearly do not exhibit a good grasp of how it works, is that consensus is anathema to science.  It is also usual for a scientist to say "it is our current belief, based on the empirical data at hand that "X" will occur if "Y" is done.  Scientists realise that knowledge is allways changing as our instruments become ever more sensitive and powerful.

As far as drilling another hole in the middle of nowhere, yes that is exactly what I would like to see.  Instead of pissing a million dollars down the rathole of whatever pointless environmental research you choose to name I would like to see some much more solid research done on a whole host of scientific endeavors.  I am a geologist, I actually have worked in the field for 35 years.  You insult people and "talk" about science....I DO science.


----------



## JiggsCasey

westwall said:


> Occams Razor is a rule of science nimrod, it ranks right up there with "correlation does not equal causation".



Wrong. It's a maxim, one that refers to a best guess based on induction and pragmatism. A RULE would be something concrete and irrefutable, not something that refers to tendency.

Ironically, Occam's Razor would be far more in my corner on this overall debate, considering no one knows where future oil is going to come from in the amounts required to sustain our paradigm. The simplest answer, obviously, is that because most nations are past peak (fact), the stuff is gonna be much harder and more expensive to find (logic). That's Occam's Razor. That's the simplest answer.



westwall said:


> Eugene Island is not a singular event either, Mexican Hat recharges on average every 20 years or so.  It is a small field so internet "experts" will have never heard of it.  You may have heard of the Aneth oil field however, and it too has exhibited some recharge.



Great. And 60-yard field goals can occasionally be successful in the NFL, but you don't see teams structure their strategy based on the assumption of their extremely rare success. 

Your smarmy condescension aside, you're not dealing with a mere "internet expert" here, ok self-asserted "scientist?" I'm not here to crow about what I do for a living, but let's just say that I can tell from our brief exchange that I know more about global flow rates, proven reserve totals and demand growth than you do, or just more than you're willing to be honest about.

You're going to need to link to support your claim. Pointing to a few tiny fields that may have "recharged" a few days worth of energy at current consumption rates over 10-20 years is hardly axiomatic of the overall process of crude origin, and far more evidence exists that we are past the halfway point. How much "recharged?" Point to a single field that "recharged" more than a billion or so barrels? Heck, how bout 50 million barrels? It doesn't happen. Period. But I'm sure you're very anxious for that to be the case, so I'm all ears, bring it on.



westwall said:


> The Laws of Thermodynamics are of course unalterable and when you can point out to their relevance for this particular argument please feel free to enlighten us otherwise see post above about pointless insults.



You entered the discussion with pointless insults with your baseless "peak is a myth... duh!" rant, so you earned it. Anyhow, scientist, let's paraphrase the basic laws of thermodynamics, and then you can tell us how they're somehow irrelevant to the overall energy discussion being covered here (admittedly, the third and or zeroth laws are irrelevant):

1st law: energy cannot be created or destroyed; rather, the amount of energy lost in a steady state process cannot be greater than the amount of energy gained.

in other words - you can not get something for nothing...  (and "something for nothing" is the platform that abiotic theorists DEPEND upon)​
2nd law: Otherwise known as the law of entropy. In all energies exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy state will always wind up being less than the original state. 

in other words - entropy always increases as the process goes along, and you can never break even. Along those lines, Peak deniers have little-to-no grasp of EROEI, and seldom factor in the energy required to even get at, extract, refine and deliever the energy being sought.​
So there are two LAWS that people must always ask themselves when considering alternatives, or in your case, a mandate to "Just drill deeper!" Occam's Razor is not. 

There are no replacements for what easy-to-extract, light crude has provided complex societies. We are where we are today (empire) because of it, and now all the low-hanging fruit has been picked.

Yeah, I'd say that's quite relevant. 



westwall said:


> One other thing you need to know about science, because you clearly do not exhibit a good grasp of how it works,



irony



westwall said:


> is that consensus is anathema to science.  It is also usual for a scientist to say "it is our current belief, based on the empirical data at hand that "X" will occur if "Y" is done.  Scientists realise that knowledge is allways changing as our instruments become ever more sensitive and powerful.



Right, and what are they saying today about oil fields "refilling?" How common is it, exactly, and in what proven, recoverable amount? Where? Obviously you're awesome, as you've proclaimed, so this should be easy for you to produce. What is their "consensus" regarding your theory that a few tiny fields have "filled back up" a bit?



westwall said:


> As far as drilling another hole in the middle of nowhere, yes that is exactly what I would like to see.  Instead of pissing a million dollars down the rathole of whatever pointless environmental research you choose to name I would like to see some much more solid research done on a whole host of scientific endeavors.  I am a geologist, I actually have worked in the field for 35 years.



Then you must be among the most irresponsible scientist in the history of man. I'm sure Big Oil would sprint to hire guys like you who advocate they blindly drill in the middle of no where. To heck with the costs, right?  "It's GOTTA be down there! Look at Eugene Island and Mexican Hat?"

Surely it's all a big conspiracy against the oil giants, because they're somehow NOT just poking holes all over the Earth and hoping for the best, like you'd advocate. Must be liberal agenda hampering their blind ambition, not the USGS or anything.



westwall said:


> You insult people and "talk" about science....I DO science.



LOL... Get over yourself. You could say you're Thomas Gold himself, if you like. Doesn't do much for this discussion. Based on what you've offered in this exchange, I'm gonna call bullshit. Perhaps you're a rig operator who knows more than your bosses, like the men in the video I provided, who all confirm peak is here.

Either way, scientist, you're still pretending you know more than those behind decades of innovation and know-how, and that they are all just somehow keeping the oil from us by not drilling wildly everywhere. Good one.

Ultimately, you've been challenged to prove where the oil is going forward to meet our 86 million barrel per day appetite (and growing, via developing Asian nations), and the best you've come up with is to suggest a few tiny fields have shown tiny reserve growth, oil must then be abiotic, and we should insist that Big Oil go bankrupt drilling everywhere and hope for the best.

Fail.

Hope is not a policy. And hope will not be used to set the domestic energy agenda, no matter how much money you (print up and) throw at the problem.

One last time... Where is the oil, going forward?  How much? At what cost? Heck, guesstimate the costs... Just tell the forum where the oil is? I'm sure Chevron, BP, Exxon, Total and all the others would kill to know. ... Because they don't seem to be buying your tired claim that the fields are all "refilling" on their own.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Hey Jiggs have you explained 


_



			At a balmy minus 179º C , Titan is a far cry from Earth. Instead of water, liquid hydrocarbons in the form of methane and ethane are present on the moon's surface, and tholins probably make up its dunes. The term &#8216;tholins&#8217; was coined by Carl Sagan in 1979 to describe the complex organic molecules at the heart of prebiotic chemistry. 

Cassini has mapped about 20% of Titan's surface with radar. Several hundred lakes and seas have been observed, with each of several dozen estimated to contain more hydrocarbon liquid than Earth's oil and gas reserves. The dark dunes that run along the equator contain a volume of organics several hundred times larger than Earth's coal reserves.
		
Click to expand...

_
ESA - Space Science - Titan?s surface organics surpass oil reserves on Earth

Why dont you apply occum's razor to that?


----------



## westwall

JiggsCasey said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Occams Razor is a rule of science nimrod, it ranks right up there with "correlation does not equal causation".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. It's a maxim, one that refers to a best guess based on induction and pragmatism. A RULE would be something concrete and irrefutable, not something that refers to tendency.
> Ironically, Occam's Razor would be far more in my corner on this overall debate, considering no one knows where future oil is going to come from in the amounts required to sustain our paradigm. The simplest answer, obviously, is that because most nations are past peak (fact), the stuff is gonna be much harder and more expensive to find (logic). That's Occam's Razor. That's the simplest answer.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene Island is not a singular event either, Mexican Hat recharges on average every 20 years or so.  It is a small field so internet "experts" will have never heard of it.  You may have heard of the Aneth oil field however, and it too has exhibited some recharge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great. And 60-yard field goals can occasionally be successful in the NFL, but you don't see teams structure their strategy based on the assumption of their extremely rare success.
> 
> Your smarmy condescension aside, you're not dealing with a mere "internet expert" here, ok self-asserted "scientist?" I'm not here to crow about what I do for a living, but let's just say that I can tell from our brief exchange that I know more about global flow rates, proven reserve totals and demand growth than you do, or just more than you're willing to be honest about.
> 
> You're going to need to link to support your claim. Pointing to a few tiny fields that may have "recharged" a few days worth of energy at current consumption rates over 10-20 years is hardly axiomatic of the overall process of crude origin, and far more evidence exists that we are past the halfway point. How much "recharged?" Point to a single field that "recharged" more than a billion or so barrels? Heck, how bout 50 million barrels? It doesn't happen. Period. But I'm sure you're very anxious for that to be the case, so I'm all ears, bring it on.
> 
> 
> 
> You entered the discussion with pointless insults with your baseless "peak is a myth... duh!" rant, so you earned it. Anyhow, scientist, let's paraphrase the basic laws of thermodynamics, and then you can tell us how they're somehow irrelevant to the overall energy discussion being covered here (admittedly, the third and or zeroth laws are irrelevant):
> 
> 1st law: energy cannot be created or destroyed; rather, the amount of energy lost in a steady state process cannot be greater than the amount of energy gained.
> 
> in other words - you can not get something for nothing...  (and "something for nothing" is the platform that abiotic theorists DEPEND upon)​
> 2nd law: Otherwise known as the law of entropy. In all energies exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy state will always wind up being less than the original state.
> 
> in other words - entropy always increases as the process goes along, and you can never break even. Along those lines, Peak deniers have little-to-no grasp of EROEI, and seldom factor in the energy required to even get at, extract, refine and deliever the energy being sought.​
> So there are two LAWS that people must always ask themselves when considering alternatives, or in your case, a mandate to "Just drill deeper!" Occam's Razor is not.
> 
> There are no replacements for what easy-to-extract, light crude has provided complex societies. We are where we are today (empire) because of it, and now all the low-hanging fruit has been picked.
> 
> Yeah, I'd say that's quite relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> irony
> 
> 
> 
> Right, and what are they saying today about oil fields "refilling?" How common is it, exactly, and in what proven, recoverable amount? Where? Obviously you're awesome, as you've proclaimed, so this should be easy for you to produce. What is their "consensus" regarding your theory that a few tiny fields have "filled back up" a bit?
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as drilling another hole in the middle of nowhere, yes that is exactly what I would like to see.  Instead of pissing a million dollars down the rathole of whatever pointless environmental research you choose to name I would like to see some much more solid research done on a whole host of scientific endeavors.  I am a geologist, I actually have worked in the field for 35 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you must be among the most irresponsible scientist in the history of man. I'm sure Big Oil would sprint to hire guys like you who advocate they blindly drill in the middle of no where. To heck with the costs, right?  "It's GOTTA be down there! Look at Eugene Island and Mexican Hat?"
> 
> Surely it's all a big conspiracy against the oil giants, because they're somehow NOT just poking holes all over the Earth and hoping for the best, like you'd advocate. Must be liberal agenda hampering their blind ambition, not the USGS or anything.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You insult people and "talk" about science....I DO science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL... Get over yourself. You could say you're Thomas Gold himself, if you like. Doesn't do much for this discussion. Based on what you've offered in this exchange, I'm gonna call bullshit. Perhaps you're a rig operator who knows more than your bosses, like the men in the video I provided, who all confirm peak is here.
> 
> Either way, scientist, you're still pretending you know more than those behind decades of innovation and know-how, and that they are all just somehow keeping the oil from us by not drilling wildly everywhere. Good one.
> 
> Ultimately, you've been challenged to prove where the oil is going forward to meet our 86 million barrel per day appetite (and growing, via developing Asian nations), and the best you've come up with is to suggest a few tiny fields have shown tiny reserve growth, oil must then be abiotic, and we should insist that Big Oil go bankrupt drilling everywhere and hope for the best.
> 
> Fail.
> 
> Hope is not a policy. And hope will not be used to set the domestic energy agenda, no matter how much money you (print up and) throw at the problem.
> 
> One last time... Where is the oil, going forward?  How much? At what cost? Heck, guesstimate the costs... Just tell the forum where the oil is? I'm sure Chevron, BP, Exxon, Total and all the others would kill to know. ... Because they don't seem to be buying your tired claim that the fields are all "refilling" on their own.
Click to expand...





I'll tell you what genius.  After you have gotten a handle on the English language you can come back and speak with the adults.  I have provided a link below to a handy thesaurus and as you can see "rule" is a synonym for "maxim".  Now if you had the education to go with the attitude you might have something to add to the discussion.

I look forward to the day that you obtain that education.

Maxim Synonyms, Maxim Antonyms | Thesaurus.com


----------



## mdn2000

Did Jiggs say something to me?

All these people say there is a peak oil theory, I would love a link or something pointing to the theory.

Youtube and coloring book graphics are neat. The colored ones are real, real, neat.


----------



## Old Rocks

*There you go, O Google Challenged Fool.*

King Hubbert : The peak petroleum and gaz

I. King Hubbert's searches on the oil peak of production (all resources).
1) Who is King Hubbert?
King Hubbert was born on October 5, 1903 to San Saba in Texas, he obtains his doctorate in Sciences in the university of Chicago in 1937, where he studies in parallel geology, physics and mathematics. He is senior analyst in 1942-1943 in Washington, he leads to it his first studies on the mineral resources.
King Hubbert works for Shell in Houston during 20 years, he is here a Geophysicist , then a director of the investigation and the production, and finally consultant chief of the geology. He leaves Shell in 1963. 
He is also a Geophysicist of search to " US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY " and professor of geology and geophysics in Stanforde's university. He leaves Stanforde's university in 1968 and he returns in the university world in 1973, in Berkeley in California. He retires in 1976 quite in active remainder within "US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ", He dies on October 15, 1989 at the age of 86 years.

2) " Hubbert's curve ".
"Hubbert's curve" allows to have a theoretical curve of the production of petroleum. The curve of the investigation in the same shape as that of the production, but the peak of the curve of the investigation arrives much earlier that that of the production. And so from the peak of the oil investigation in United States in 1930, it was able to predict the peak of production of the petroleum in this last one in 1970. Then it is from the peak of the world investigation of the 1970's that he anticipates the future oil peak of production. Wars and energy crises return this more chaotic curve in practice, but it does not change anything the tendency. Once the past peak of production, the thorough tendency will be for a decline of the long-term production, wars and crises will make only decrease or increase in the short run production, long-term it does not change anything.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

If oil companies were on Titan it would be experiencing "Peak Ethane"


----------



## westwall

Old Rocks said:


> *There you go, O Google Challenged Fool.*
> 
> King Hubbert : The peak petroleum and gaz
> 
> I. King Hubbert's searches on the oil peak of production (all resources).
> 1) Who is King Hubbert?
> King Hubbert was born on October 5, 1903 to San Saba in Texas, he obtains his doctorate in Sciences in the university of Chicago in 1937, where he studies in parallel geology, physics and mathematics. He is senior analyst in 1942-1943 in Washington, he leads to it his first studies on the mineral resources.
> King Hubbert works for Shell in Houston during 20 years, he is here a Geophysicist , then a director of the investigation and the production, and finally consultant chief of the geology. He leaves Shell in 1963.
> He is also a Geophysicist of search to " US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY " and professor of geology and geophysics in Stanforde's university. He leaves Stanforde's university in 1968 and he returns in the university world in 1973, in Berkeley in California. He retires in 1976 quite in active remainder within "US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ", He dies on October 15, 1989 at the age of 86 years.
> 
> 2) " Hubbert's curve ".
> "Hubbert's curve" allows to have a theoretical curve of the production of petroleum. The curve of the investigation in the same shape as that of the production, but the peak of the curve of the investigation arrives much earlier that that of the production. And so from the peak of the oil investigation in United States in 1930, it was able to predict the peak of production of the petroleum in this last one in 1970. Then it is from the peak of the world investigation of the 1970's that he anticipates the future oil peak of production. Wars and energy crises return this more chaotic curve in practice, but it does not change anything the tendency. Once the past peak of production, the thorough tendency will be for a decline of the long-term production, wars and crises will make only decrease or increase in the short run production, long-term it does not change anything.






Wow, who was the illiterate that wrote that?  It predicted the peak of production in 1970 did it?  Then where the hell are we getting all this pesky petrol from!


----------



## mdn2000

Old Rocks said:


> *There you go, O Google Challenged Fool.*
> 
> King Hubbert : The peak petroleum and gaz
> 
> I. King Hubbert's searches on the oil peak of production (all resources).
> 1) Who is King Hubbert?
> King Hubbert was born on October 5, 1903 to San Saba in Texas, he obtains his doctorate in Sciences in the university of Chicago in 1937, where he studies in parallel geology, physics and mathematics. He is senior analyst in 1942-1943 in Washington, he leads to it his first studies on the mineral resources.
> King Hubbert works for Shell in Houston during 20 years, he is here a Geophysicist , then a director of the investigation and the production, and finally consultant chief of the geology. He leaves Shell in 1963.
> He is also a Geophysicist of search to " US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY " and professor of geology and geophysics in Stanforde's university. He leaves Stanforde's university in 1968 and he returns in the university world in 1973, in Berkeley in California. He retires in 1976 quite in active remainder within "US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ", He dies on October 15, 1989 at the age of 86 years.
> 
> 2) " Hubbert's curve ".
> "Hubbert's curve" allows to have a theoretical curve of the production of petroleum. The curve of the investigation in the same shape as that of the production, but the peak of the curve of the investigation arrives much earlier that that of the production. And so from the peak of the oil investigation in United States in 1930, it was able to predict the peak of production of the petroleum in this last one in 1970. Then it is from the peak of the world investigation of the 1970's that he anticipates the future oil peak of production. Wars and energy crises return this more chaotic curve in practice, but it does not change anything the tendency. Once the past peak of production, the thorough tendency will be for a decline of the long-term production, wars and crises will make only decrease or increase in the short run production, long-term it does not change anything.



Old Rock I must commend you for taking up where Jiggs failed.

enough said for now.


----------



## JiggsCasey

westwall said:


> Wow, who was the illiterate that wrote that?  It predicted the peak of production in 1970 did it?  Then where the hell are we getting all this pesky petrol from!



U.S. production peaked in 1971... that is a fact, and that's what it refers to. 

Wake up, and follow along, dishonest fool.



westwall said:


> I'll tell you what genius.  After you have gotten a handle on the English language you can come back and speak with the adults.  I have provided a link below to a handy thesaurus and as you can see "rule" is a synonym for "maxim".  Now if you had the education to go with the attitude you might have something to add to the discussion.
> 
> I look forward to the day that you obtain that education.
> 
> Maxim Synonyms, Maxim Antonyms | Thesaurus.com



When all you have in response is an extrapolated semantics argument, it's clear you're out of bullets. 

Abiotic theory is irrelevant, drilling holes and hoping for oil is retarded, and you're unable to show ANY new discoveries of any significance. I'd say your efforts in this thread spoke for themselves. Based on your punt above, Occam's Razor clearly indicated that when it comes to world oil reserves, you don't know what you're talking about. That' s a "rule." 

White flag accepted


----------



## mdn2000

JiggsCasey said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, who was the illiterate that wrote that?  It predicted the peak of production in 1970 did it?  Then where the hell are we getting all this pesky petrol from!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. production peaked in 1971... that is a fact, and that's what it refers to.
> 
> Wake up, and follow along, dishonest fool.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll tell you what genius.  After you have gotten a handle on the English language you can come back and speak with the adults.  I have provided a link below to a handy thesaurus and as you can see "rule" is a synonym for "maxim".  Now if you had the education to go with the attitude you might have something to add to the discussion.
> 
> I look forward to the day that you obtain that education.
> 
> Maxim Synonyms, Maxim Antonyms | Thesaurus.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When all you have in response is an extrapolated semantics argument, it's clear you're out of bullets.
> 
> Abiotic theory is irrelevant, drilling holes and hoping for oil is retarded, and you're unable to show ANY new discoveries of any significance. I'd say your efforts in this thread spoke for themselves. Based on your punt above, Occam's Razor clearly indicated that when it comes to world oil reserves, you don't know what you're talking about. That' s a "rule."
> 
> White flag accepted
Click to expand...


US production, production is refining, not reserves, not discovery, thanks for finally clearing up your statement. 

Build more refineries and peak production is increased.


----------



## Samson

JiggsCasey said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, who was the illiterate that wrote that?  It predicted the peak of production in 1970 did it?  Then where the hell are we getting all this pesky petrol from!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. production peaked in 1971... that is a fact, and that's what it refers to.
Click to expand...




And since then, for the past 50 years, every major economic and social catastrophy has been a result of Peak Oil, The Aztec Calander, Alien abduction, and Elvis Sitings.



What an idiot.


----------



## westwall

JiggsCasey said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, who was the illiterate that wrote that?  It predicted the peak of production in 1970 did it?  Then where the hell are we getting all this pesky petrol from!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. production peaked in 1971... that is a fact, and that's what it refers to.
> 
> Wake up, and follow along, dishonest fool.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll tell you what genius.  After you have gotten a handle on the English language you can come back and speak with the adults.  I have provided a link below to a handy thesaurus and as you can see "rule" is a synonym for "maxim".  Now if you had the education to go with the attitude you might have something to add to the discussion.
> 
> I look forward to the day that you obtain that education.
> 
> Maxim Synonyms, Maxim Antonyms | Thesaurus.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When all you have in response is an extrapolated semantics argument, it's clear you're out of bullets.
> 
> Abiotic theory is irrelevant, drilling holes and hoping for oil is retarded, and you're unable to show ANY new discoveries of any significance. I'd say your efforts in this thread spoke for themselves. Based on your punt above, Occam's Razor clearly indicated that when it comes to world oil reserves, you don't know what you're talking about. That' s a "rule."
> 
> White flag accepted
Click to expand...




Decided to slink back in eh?  I extrapolated nothing.  I merely pointed out your woeful command of the English Language (is it a second language for you?) you chose to make an ignorant comment, I merely refuted it with a simple link.  It's sad you havn't the brains to admit you were wrong and just get on with your education but such is the callowness of youth.

Oh, for the record, US production "peaked" due to Federal Regulations.  There is a lot of oil underground that we are not allowed to go get.


----------



## mdn2000

JiggsCasey said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, who was the illiterate that wrote that?  It predicted the peak of production in 1970 did it?  Then where the hell are we getting all this pesky petrol from!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. production peaked in 1971... that is a fact, and that's what it refers to.
> 
> Wake up, and follow along, dishonest fool.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll tell you what genius.  After you have gotten a handle on the English language you can come back and speak with the adults.  I have provided a link below to a handy thesaurus and as you can see "rule" is a synonym for "maxim".  Now if you had the education to go with the attitude you might have something to add to the discussion.
> 
> I look forward to the day that you obtain that education.
> 
> Maxim Synonyms, Maxim Antonyms | Thesaurus.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When all you have in response is an extrapolated semantics argument, it's clear you're out of bullets.
> 
> Abiotic theory is irrelevant, drilling holes and hoping for oil is retarded, and you're unable to show ANY new discoveries of any significance. I'd say your efforts in this thread spoke for themselves. Based on your punt above, Occam's Razor clearly indicated that when it comes to world oil reserves, you don't know what you're talking about. That' s a "rule."
> 
> White flag accepted
Click to expand...


I prefer your coloring book pictures, they are pretty and very convincing


----------



## Big Fitz

> U.S. production peaked in 1971... that is a fact, and that's what it  refers to.



The convenient aspect of this 'fact' is that they discount ALL political and economic reasons that this production 'peaked'.  It screws up their pretty theory all too quickly.


----------



## Old Rocks

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There you go, O Google Challenged Fool.*
> 
> King Hubbert : The peak petroleum and gaz
> 
> I. King Hubbert's searches on the oil peak of production (all resources).
> 1) Who is King Hubbert?
> King Hubbert was born on October 5, 1903 to San Saba in Texas, he obtains his doctorate in Sciences in the university of Chicago in 1937, where he studies in parallel geology, physics and mathematics. He is senior analyst in 1942-1943 in Washington, he leads to it his first studies on the mineral resources.
> King Hubbert works for Shell in Houston during 20 years, he is here a Geophysicist , then a director of the investigation and the production, and finally consultant chief of the geology. He leaves Shell in 1963.
> He is also a Geophysicist of search to " US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY " and professor of geology and geophysics in Stanforde's university. He leaves Stanforde's university in 1968 and he returns in the university world in 1973, in Berkeley in California. He retires in 1976 quite in active remainder within "US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ", He dies on October 15, 1989 at the age of 86 years.
> 
> 2) " Hubbert's curve ".
> "Hubbert's curve" allows to have a theoretical curve of the production of petroleum. The curve of the investigation in the same shape as that of the production, but the peak of the curve of the investigation arrives much earlier that that of the production. And so from the peak of the oil investigation in United States in 1930, it was able to predict the peak of production of the petroleum in this last one in 1970. Then it is from the peak of the world investigation of the 1970's that he anticipates the future oil peak of production. Wars and energy crises return this more chaotic curve in practice, but it does not change anything the tendency. Once the past peak of production, the thorough tendency will be for a decline of the long-term production, wars and crises will make only decrease or increase in the short run production, long-term it does not change anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, who was the illiterate that wrote that?  It predicted the peak of production in 1970 did it?  Then where the hell are we getting all this pesky petrol from!
Click to expand...


There you go again, you comprehension challenged liar. Dr. Hubbert predicted the peak oil for the US to be about 1970. He was dead on. Since that year, oil production in the US has declined. Now we are at or close to the peak oil for the world. And all the jackass braying from idiots like yourself will not change that one whit.


----------



## Old Rocks

Big Fitz said:


> U.S. production peaked in 1971... that is a fact, and that's what it  refers to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The convenient aspect of this 'fact' is that they discount ALL political and economic reasons that this production 'peaked'.  It screws up their pretty theory all too quickly.
Click to expand...


Well, just why don't you show those reasons? Come on, show some links to those who study this kind of thing, not wingnut talking points.

Another fool that yaps without the slightest idea of the science.


----------



## JiggsCasey

westwall said:


> Decided to slink back in eh?



LOL. WHat does this even mean? Because my response wasn't timely enough for you? I don't spend every waking moment on this site like you and your kin. 



westwall said:


> I extrapolated nothing.  I merely pointed out your woeful command of the English Language (is it a second language for you?) you chose to make an ignorant comment, I merely refuted it with a simple link.  It's sad you havn't the brains to admit you were wrong and just get on with your education but such is the callowness of youth.



The operative term in your retarded premise was "science." Occam's is only a "rule" for hypothesis.  It's no fucking "rule of science," tool. It's to help with guesswork. A scientific "rule" doesn't rely on guess work. 

But I guess this is all you have in your retort - a semantics argument. You can't respond to any of the other direct challenges I have slapped you around with.... because you can't.



westwall said:


> Oh, for the record, US production "peaked" due to Federal Regulations.  There is a lot of oil underground that we are not allowed to go get.



Yes, yes... Your camp keeps relying on this emptiness, despite all the geological data. It's all a big "conspiracy" in the view of the anti-conspiracy jaggovs. How ironic.

Very well, limited poster. Where is it then here in America? And in what proven amount? (Light crude please)

You won't respond with a direct answer, because you know you won't be able to find a link to something that doesn't exist.

Run along.


----------



## mdn2000

Peak or no Peak we should conserve as best we can, building windmills, solar plants, and geothermal increase the amount of oil we need, conserving energy means no more "Renewable/Green Energy".

Seriously, do you think Wind Turbines and Solar Power plants grow on trees.


----------



## westwall

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There you go, O Google Challenged Fool.*
> 
> King Hubbert : The peak petroleum and gaz
> 
> I. King Hubbert's searches on the oil peak of production (all resources).
> 1) Who is King Hubbert?
> King Hubbert was born on October 5, 1903 to San Saba in Texas, he obtains his doctorate in Sciences in the university of Chicago in 1937, where he studies in parallel geology, physics and mathematics. He is senior analyst in 1942-1943 in Washington, he leads to it his first studies on the mineral resources.
> King Hubbert works for Shell in Houston during 20 years, he is here a Geophysicist , then a director of the investigation and the production, and finally consultant chief of the geology. He leaves Shell in 1963.
> He is also a Geophysicist of search to " US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY " and professor of geology and geophysics in Stanforde's university. He leaves Stanforde's university in 1968 and he returns in the university world in 1973, in Berkeley in California. He retires in 1976 quite in active remainder within "US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ", He dies on October 15, 1989 at the age of 86 years.
> 
> 2) " Hubbert's curve ".
> "Hubbert's curve" allows to have a theoretical curve of the production of petroleum. The curve of the investigation in the same shape as that of the production, but the peak of the curve of the investigation arrives much earlier that that of the production. And so from the peak of the oil investigation in United States in 1930, it was able to predict the peak of production of the petroleum in this last one in 1970. Then it is from the peak of the world investigation of the 1970's that he anticipates the future oil peak of production. Wars and energy crises return this more chaotic curve in practice, but it does not change anything the tendency. Once the past peak of production, the thorough tendency will be for a decline of the long-term production, wars and crises will make only decrease or increase in the short run production, long-term it does not change anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, who was the illiterate that wrote that?  It predicted the peak of production in 1970 did it?  Then where the hell are we getting all this pesky petrol from!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go again, you comprehension challenged liar. Dr. Hubbert predicted the peak oil for the US to be about 1970. He was dead on. Since that year, oil production in the US has declined. Now we are at or close to the peak oil for the world. And all the jackass braying from idiots like yourself will not change that one whit.
Click to expand...





Oil production in the US has declined because of legislative fiat you fact challenged silly person.  There is plenty of oil in the ground, the oil companies aren't allowed to go get it.


----------



## westwall

JiggsCasey said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Decided to slink back in eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. WHat does this even mean? Because my response wasn't timely enough for you? I don't spend every waking moment on this site like you and your kin.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I extrapolated nothing.  I merely pointed out your woeful command of the English Language (is it a second language for you?) you chose to make an ignorant comment, I merely refuted it with a simple link.  It's sad you havn't the brains to admit you were wrong and just get on with your education but such is the callowness of youth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The operative term in your retarded premise was "science." Occam's is only a "rule" for hypothesis.  It's no fucking "rule of science," tool. It's to help with guesswork. A scientific "rule" doesn't rely on guess work.
> 
> But I guess this is all you have in your retort - a semantics argument. You can't respond to any of the other direct challenges I have slapped you around with.... because you can't.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, for the record, US production "peaked" due to Federal Regulations.  There is a lot of oil underground that we are not allowed to go get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, yes... Your camp keeps relying on this emptiness, despite all the geological data. It's all a big "conspiracy" in the view of the anti-conspiracy jaggovs. How ironic.
> 
> Very well, limited poster. Where is it then here in America? And in what proven amount? (Light crude please)
> 
> You won't respond with a direct answer, because you know you won't be able to find a link to something that doesn't exist.
> 
> Run along.
Click to expand...




You wouldn't know a geologic argument if it bit you in the ass.  I am a geologist and am also a qualified geologic illustrator (I do much better work than the juvenile efforts you linked too!) and have had plenty of experience doing core data interpretation.  Your arguments are based on nothing but a willful ignorance perpetrated by the oil companies who want to elevate the price of oil.

Congrats you have graduated from ignorant twerp to useful idiot.


----------



## Old Rocks

A geologist that has never read King Hubbert. That is rich.

A geologist that states he knows more than all the geologists in the AGU.

Oil reserves in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proven reserves

United States oil production peaked in 1970. By 2005 imports were twice production.United States proven oil reserves were 21 billion barrels (3.3×10^9 m3) in 2006 according to the Energy Information Administration.[1] This represents a decline of 46%, or 18 billion barrels (2.9×10^9 m3) from 39 billion barrels (6.2×10^9 m3) in 1970. U.S. crude production peaked in 1970 at 9.6 million barrels per day (1.53×10^6 m3/d), after the supergiant Prudhoe Bay field was found in Alaska. It has declined 47% to 5.1 million barrels per day (810×10^3 m3/d) by 2006.[2] United States crude oil production has been declining since reaching a smaller secondary production peak in 1988 (caused by Alaskan production). Total production of crude oil from 1970 through 2006 was 102 billion barrels (16.2×10^9 m3), or roughly five and a half times the decline in proved reserves.[3]

The reserves-to-production (R/P) equaled 11.26 years in 2007. The ratio was 11.08 years in 1970. It hit a trough of 8.49 years in 1986 as oil pumped through the Alaska pipeline began to peak.[3]

Because of declining production and increasing demand, Net US imports of oil and petroleum products increased by 400% from 3.16 million barrels per day (502×10^3 m3/d) in 1970 to 12.04 million barrels per day (1.914×10^6 m3/d) in 2007. Its largest net suppliers of petroleum products in 2007 were Canada and Mexico, which supplied 2.2 and 1.3 Mbbl/d (350×10^3 and 210×10^3 m3/d), respectively.[4]

Net imports of oil and products account for nearly half of the US trade deficit. As of 2007, the US consumed 20.68m bbls of petroleum products/day and imported a net 12.04m bbls/day. The EIA reports the United States "Dependence on Net Petroleum Imports" as 58.2%


----------



## Samson

Old Rocks said:


> A geologist that has never read King Hubbert. That is rich.
> 
> A geologist that states he knows more than all the geologists in the AGU.
> 
> Oil reserves in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Proven reserves
> 
> United States oil production peaked in 1970. By 2005 imports were twice production.United States proven oil reserves were 21 billion barrels (3.3×10^9 m3) in 2006 according to the Energy Information Administration.[1] This represents a decline of 46%, or 18 billion barrels (2.9×10^9 m3) from 39 billion barrels (6.2×10^9 m3) in 1970. U.S. crude production peaked in 1970 at 9.6 million barrels per day (1.53×10^6 m3/d), after the supergiant Prudhoe Bay field was found in Alaska. It has declined 47% to 5.1 million barrels per day (810×10^3 m3/d) by 2006.[2] United States crude oil production has been declining since reaching a smaller secondary production peak in 1988 (caused by Alaskan production). Total production of crude oil from 1970 through 2006 was 102 billion barrels (16.2×10^9 m3), or roughly five and a half times the decline in proved reserves.[3]
> 
> The reserves-to-production (R/P) equaled 11.26 years in 2007. The ratio was 11.08 years in 1970. It hit a trough of 8.49 years in 1986 as oil pumped through the Alaska pipeline began to peak.[3]
> 
> Because of declining production and increasing demand, Net US imports of oil and petroleum products increased by 400% from 3.16 million barrels per day (502×10^3 m3/d) in 1970 to 12.04 million barrels per day (1.914×10^6 m3/d) in 2007. Its largest net suppliers of petroleum products in 2007 were Canada and Mexico, which supplied 2.2 and 1.3 Mbbl/d (350×10^3 and 210×10^3 m3/d), respectively.[4]
> 
> Net imports of oil and products account for nearly half of the US trade deficit. As of 2007, the US consumed 20.68m bbls of petroleum products/day and imported a net 12.04m bbls/day. The EIA reports the United States "Dependence on Net Petroleum Imports" as 58.2%



It would be impressive, if you had a point?

My guess is that whatever the point might be (e.g. 9/11, the housing bubble, and male pattern balding are results of US oil imports), it is so moronic that it even is embarrassing to idiots like you.


----------



## Old Rocks

And your point is what, Sammy?


----------



## Samson

Old Rocks said:


> And your point is what, Sammy?



That you have none.


----------



## Old Rocks

Whatever


----------



## Samson

Old Rocks said:


> Whatever



Yes, don't hurt yourself trying to figure out what your point may have been.



Fuck, you're an idiot.


----------



## Old Rocks

The point, my braindead Sammy boy, is that peak oil is real, and we are seeing it's confirmation at present.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

We stopped building refineries because production peaked?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Peak oil: as real as man made Global Warming


----------



## Mr. H.

Science and engineering are no longer obstacles to finding and developing oil and natural gas reserves. It's politics and economics.


----------



## Samson

JiggsCasey said:


> Do you wanna debate global oil depletion, or do you wanna play games and boast about how awesome you think you are?



"Debate Global Oil Depletion?"

I thought we were debating the myth of "Peak Oil" and your Manic-Depressive mental disorders.


----------



## JiggsCasey

westwall said:


> You wouldn't know a geologic argument if it bit you in the ass.  I am a geologist and am also a qualified geologic illustrator (I do much better work than the juvenile efforts you linked too!) and have had plenty of experience doing core data interpretation.  Your arguments are based on nothing but a willful ignorance perpetrated by the oil companies who want to elevate the price of oil.
> 
> Congrats you have graduated from ignorant twerp to useful idiot.



Yes, you keep saying this. Unfortunately, when challenged to get into such data interpretation, you've avoided it.  Sorry, but using Occam's Razor, and considering your repeated unwillingness to simply provide even a vague numerical figure for how much proven reserves you believe we have here in the U.S., I'm going to side with the most obvious explanation: You're full of crap. 

At best, it seems your alleged industry you keep pretentiously bragging about is so irrelevant to the topic being discussed, you have no idea what I seem to be asking of you.

Do you wanna debate global oil depletion, or do you wanna play games and boast about how awesome you think you are?


----------



## Big Fitz

CrusaderFrank said:


> Peak oil: as real as man made Global Warming


Peak Oil and Anthropogenic Global Warming.  So manmade that it would have to read 'all artificial ingredients' on it's packaging.  

Nothing real about it.


----------



## Londoner

JiggsCasey said:


> LOL.... you read the story, didn't you? What's the total they think they've found? Curiously no mention of that.  Yawn.
> 
> Do better.



The situation is simple.

Oil is a high profit substance.

Person 'X' owns the oil.

It is in 'X's best interest to make sure that the political and ideological climate protect his profit source, lest the market gets wise and starts investing in less petrol-intensive solutions. 

Therefore, it is absolutely logical for X to invest in politics and media - to control laws and minds.

Politics

- X pays politicians to block conservation methods (so America has to use the maximum amount of oil, thus driving up the price).
- X Pays politicians to block energy competition, like the measures used to crush alternative energy in the early 80s or the first electric car movement in CA, in the 90s.
- X pays politicians for deregulation which enables anti-consumer market manipulation.
- X pays politicians for unaffordable military intervention around the globe (to secure access to petroleum in unstable regions), rather than using the money to diminish American dependence on foreign oil.

Media

- X gives money to think tanks, publishing groups, and mass media outlets for the sole purpose of producing evidence, premises, conclusions, stories, books, facts, and information which protects his interests, one of which is to defeat anything which would diminish the monopoly of oil. 

Starting in the 60s . . . when the right started to radicalize and purge itself of moderates, and Goldwater/Nixon/Wallace were building the southern strategy to bust the New Deal coalition,
movement Conservatism started building a highly efficient machine which would channel profits into politics and media - their goal was to form a perfect synergy between business and the wider political/media scape. This machine would evolve into the most powerful lobbying infrastructure in world history. This machine would enable the right to move profits seamlessly into something so powerful that it could turn Bin Laden into Hussein and Health Care into death panels. - a machine so powerful that it could invent intelligence to start a dubious war, leading to the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people, while the same machine could impeach the other party's president for an extramarital affair. This is called power.  

The left has been asleep ever since the great postwar New Deal era ended. Once they splintered into social movements, they lacked the means to federate into an efficient, unified machine. They now lack the ability to promote and spread their vision. They don't have a centralized processing center which funnels money into a powerful, comprehensive bullhorn. Despite Clinton's successful effort to co-opt big business, they are still playing catch-up: business only supports democrats when it's a "democratic election cycle" or a "democratic district", otherwise they would much prefer investing in the more business-friendly GOP.  The Left can't even reach old people who want Government to get its dirty hands off their medicare. There is a broad cross section of poor people out there who are voting against their economic interests because the Left does not have a machine in place to speak to these people. On the other hand, when G W Bush spoke, his machine would spread the message to an unfathomably large army of people who would pepper the airwaves and fill message-rooms, blogs, and TV & radio, repeating his narrative of terrorism, freedom, evil doers, WMD, and free markets endlessly until it became part of the factual backdrop. When Obama speaks, his words are twisted by the same machine. He has no bullhorn. He is out-shouted by a bigger, louder machine. 

The game is over. America is ruled by one party. When will the Left admit that their 30 year failure to federate has placed them in a hole of persistent surrender and compromise? When will they admit to the base that the battle has been lost more comprehensively than anyone can imagine?


----------



## Big Fitz

Londoner said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.... you read the story, didn't you? What's the total they think they've found? Curiously no mention of that.  Yawn.
> 
> Do better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The situation is simple.
> 
> Oil is a high profit substance.
> 
> Person 'X' owns the oil.
> 
> It is in 'X's best interest to make sure that the political and ideological climate protect his profit source, lest the market gets wise and starts investing in less petrol-intensive solutions.
> 
> Therefore, it is absolutely logical for X to invest in politics and media - to control laws and minds.
> 
> Politics
> 
> - X pays politicians to block conservation methods (so America has to use the maximum amount of oil, thus driving up the price).
> - X Pays politicians to block energy competition, like the measures used to crush alternative energy in the early 80s or the first electric car movement in CA, in the 90s.
> - X pays politicians for deregulation which enables anti-consumer market manipulation.
> - X pays politicians for unaffordable military intervention around the globe (to secure access to petroleum in unstable regions), rather than using the money to diminish American dependence on foreign oil.
> 
> Media
> 
> - X gives money to think tanks, publishing groups, and mass media outlets for the sole purpose of producing evidence, premises, conclusions, stories, books, facts, and information which protects his interests, one of which is to defeat anything which would diminish the monopoly of oil.
> 
> Starting in the 60s . . . when the right started to radicalize and purge itself of moderates, and Goldwater/Nixon/Wallace were building the southern strategy to bust the New Deal coalition,
> movement Conservatism started building a highly efficient machine which would channel profits into politics and media - their goal was to form a perfect synergy between business and the wider political/media scape. This machine would evolve into the most powerful lobbying infrastructure in world history. This machine would enable the right to move profits seamlessly into something so powerful that it could turn Bin Laden into Hussein and Health Care into death panels. - a machine so powerful that it could invent intelligence to start a dubious war, leading to the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people, while the same machine could impeach the other party's president for an extramarital affair. This is called power.
> 
> The left has been asleep ever since the great postwar New Deal era ended. Once they splintered into social movements, they lacked the means to federate into an efficient, unified machine. They now lack the ability to promote and spread their vision. They don't have a centralized processing center which funnels money into a powerful, comprehensive bullhorn. Despite Clinton's successful effort to co-opt big business, they are still playing catch-up: business only supports democrats when it's a "democratic election cycle" or a "democratic district", otherwise they would much prefer investing in the more business-friendly GOP.  The Left can't even reach old people who want Government to get its dirty hands off their medicare. There is a broad cross section of poor people out there who are voting against their economic interests because the Left does not have a machine in place to speak to these people. On the other hand, when G W Bush spoke, his machine would spread the message to an unfathomably large army of people who would pepper the airwaves and fill message-rooms, blogs, and TV & radio, repeating his narrative of terrorism, freedom, evil doers, WMD, and free markets endlessly until it became part of the factual backdrop. When Obama speaks, his words are twisted by the same machine. He has no bullhorn. He is out-shouted by a bigger, louder machine.
> 
> The game is over. America is ruled by one party. When will the Left admit that their 30 year failure to federate has placed them in a hole of persistent surrender and compromise? When will they admit to the base that the battle has been lost more comprehensively than anyone can imagine?
Click to expand...

  well that's delusional.

Oil is not a 'high profit substance'.  You can buy 55 gallons of it for less than 100 bucks.  The profit margin on it is less than 8%.  You want a high profit margin?  Look at Hedge Funds.  80%  That's a profit margin.  Ounce for ounce Printer Ink is the most expensive liquid in the world.

And the green econazis have been making this political mess possible since 1970. Surrendering?  Don't I wish they were.  No, they've gone Mount Suribachi on us.  If they don't die in a banzai charge, they are boobytrapping their bodies as they fall.


----------



## JiggsCasey

Londoner said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.... you read the story, didn't you? What's the total they think they've found? Curiously no mention of that.  Yawn.
> 
> Do better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The situation is simple.
> 
> Oil is a high profit substance.
> 
> Person 'X' owns the oil.
> 
> It is in 'X's best interest to make sure that the political and ideological climate protect his profit source, lest the market gets wise and starts investing in less petrol-intensive solutions.
> 
> Therefore, it is absolutely logical for X to invest in politics and media - to control laws and minds.
Click to expand...


Cool story, bro. "Logical" even.

So, we'll pencil you in for the baseless conspiracy angle also. Noted.

Anyhoo, dozens of posters have now been challenged... Taunted even.... to show where it is. ...   Yet not a single one of them is apparently able to quantify where "plenty" of oil actually is in any proven amount, domestic of otherwise, nor are they able to dispute the fact that tar sands and oil shale will not sustain growth the way light crude has.

And on and on the dancing goes.  Nothing is more telling throughout this sub-forum than the denail camp's utter silence in response to this ultimate question. Lot's of smoke and mirrors though.  .... Great stuff.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Sorry jiggs, there is no there  there, you are just a kook hollering about made up things things pretending  you know things.
Best to stop and just pretend it never happened and post about  your favorite color  or shapes you used to recognize .


----------



## JiggsCasey

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Sorry jiggs, there is no there  there, you are just a kook hollering about made up things things pretending  you know things.
> Best to stop and just pretend it never happened and post about  your favorite color  or shapes you used to recognize .



Don't be sorry. Just answer the question, or accept that your platform is baseless. 

I'll just keep calling you on your latest round of horseshit: Why is it "made up?" 

Why are you guys utterly unable to answer the ultimate question? Where is the oil? In what amount?  You won't respond, because you can't.


----------



## westwall

JiggsCasey said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry jiggs, there is no there  there, you are just a kook hollering about made up things things pretending  you know things.
> Best to stop and just pretend it never happened and post about  your favorite color  or shapes you used to recognize .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be sorry. Just answer the question, or accept that your platform is baseless.
> 
> I'll just keep calling you on your latest round of horseshit: Why is it "made up?"
> 
> Why are you guys utterly unable to answer the ultimate question? Where is the oil? In what amount?  You won't respond, because you can't.
Click to expand...





The oil is wherever it is needed it seems to me.  Whenever we need more Saudi Arabia seems magically to be able to ramp up production to whatever is needed.  More to the point if peak oil had truly been reached the price per barrel would rapidly be escalating to 200 or more per barrel.  Instead it is stuck at around the 80 to 100 level per barrel, and even that is a fiction.  50-60% of the price per barrel is due to speculation on the part of commodities traders, not demand.

Perhaps 60% of todays oil price is pure speculation

Oil speculation - NYTimes.com

Oil Speculation

Did Speculation Fuel Oil Price Swings? - 60 Minutes - CBS News

Fears of Oil Speculation Driving Up Gas Prices, Canceling Out Stimulus | FDL News Desk

So there you have it.  Speculators and the oil companies themselves are driving the prices up...not demand.  Production is well able to meet the demand levels.  In the Gulf of Mexico
production declined over the last few years due to hurricane damage.  However, the production rates are increasing and will be around 1.9 million barrels per day, with a further 7 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas.

But go ahead keep on with the chicken little act.  There are allways some who choose to live in a perpetual state of fear.


----------



## mdn2000

westwall said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry jiggs, there is no there  there, you are just a kook hollering about made up things things pretending  you know things.
> Best to stop and just pretend it never happened and post about  your favorite color  or shapes you used to recognize .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be sorry. Just answer the question, or accept that your platform is baseless.
> 
> I'll just keep calling you on your latest round of horseshit: Why is it "made up?"
> 
> Why are you guys utterly unable to answer the ultimate question? Where is the oil? In what amount?  You won't respond, because you can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The oil is wherever it is needed it seems to me.  Whenever we need more Saudi Arabia seems magically to be able to ramp up production to whatever is needed.  More to the point if peak oil had truly been reached the price per barrel would rapidly be escalating to 200 or more per barrel.  Instead it is stuck at around the 80 to 100 level per barrel, and even that is a fiction.  50-60% of the price per barrel is due to speculation on the part of commodities traders, not demand.
> 
> Perhaps 60% of todays oil price is pure speculation
> 
> Oil speculation - NYTimes.com
> 
> Oil Speculation
> 
> Did Speculation Fuel Oil Price Swings? - 60 Minutes - CBS News
> 
> Fears of Oil Speculation Driving Up Gas Prices, Canceling Out Stimulus | FDL News Desk
> 
> So there you have it.  Speculators and the oil companies themselves are driving the prices up...not demand.  Production is well able to meet the demand levels.  In the Gulf of Mexico
> production declined over the last few years due to hurricane damage.  However, the production rates are increasing and will be around 1.9 million barrels per day, with a further 7 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas.
> 
> But go ahead keep on with the chicken little act.  There are allways some who choose to live in a perpetual state of fear.
Click to expand...


Best be careful, Jiggs just put me in my place over in my Oregon thread, Jiggs told me so.


----------



## JiggsCasey

westwall said:


> The oil is wherever it is needed it seems to me.  Whenever we need more Saudi Arabia seems magically to be able to ramp up production to whatever is needed.



A few too many "seems" are written in that passage. This is a transparent and hollow attempt to answer a challenge you don't have a figure for. It gets worse and worse for you as this goes along.

Saudi does NOT "magically" ramp up production anymore, only suggests it can. You couldn't possibly know Saudi's capability, because no one is allowed to independently verify their reserve totals. All we have to go on are their desperate actions, like calling in Halliburton, resorting to water injections, and pouring millions into offshore infrastructure.

Sometimes circumstantial evidence is far more convincing than direct evidence.

Example -
Direct evidence: You come in and tell me it's raining outside.
Circumstantial evidence: You come in, soaked and drawing down and umbrella, but don't say a word.

Now, which is more convincing that it's actually raining outside?



westwall said:


> More to the point if peak oil had truly been reached the price per barrel would rapidly be escalating to 200 or more per barrel.



No it wouldn't. That's an assanine assumption, considering global recession that resulted in the short spike flatlined global demand and sent the price plummeting just as quickly. Either way, the longterm price is rising, and the ramifications are (and will continue to be) economic upheaval. 



westwall said:


> Instead it is stuck at around the 80 to 100 level per barrel,



This is a little bit like saying the football is spotted somewhere between the 20 yard lines. And it most certainly isn't "stuck" at all... It only crept past $80 a few short weeks ago, and continue to creep upward.



westwall said:


> and even that is a fiction.  50-60% of the price per barrel is due to speculation on the part of commodities traders, not demand.
> 
> &#8216;Perhaps 60% of today&#8217;s oil price is pure speculation&#8217;
> 
> Oil speculation - NYTimes.com
> 
> Oil Speculation
> 
> Did Speculation Fuel Oil Price Swings? - 60 Minutes - CBS News
> 
> Fears of Oil Speculation Driving Up Gas Prices, Canceling Out Stimulus | FDL News Desk
> 
> So there you have it.  Speculators and the oil companies themselves are driving the prices up...not demand.



Great. And where does it say anything refuting demand's affect? You just threw a bunch of links out there, and just made up a cause/effect assertion. LOL.

The difference here is that I can admit speculation plays a part in it. You, however, REFUSE to admit the undeniable conditions of supply depletion, nor demand growth.



westwall said:


> Production is well able to meet the demand levels.



That's quite a statement. Link please.



westwall said:


> In the Gulf of Mexico production declined over the last few years due to hurricane damage.



Among other things.



westwall said:


> However, the production rates are increasing and will be around 1.9 million barrels per day, with a further 7 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas.



Yeah, we consume 21 million barrels per day, and 64 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas, and growing. We're still a bigger net importer each passing year, and that won't change. Miss the point much?

But, increasing since when? Last week? 5 years ago? 10? Put your statement into some form of context. Don't just throw some figures out there and think you've scored some point. LOL.



westwall said:


> But go ahead keep on with the chicken little act.  There are allways some who choose to live in a perpetual state of fear.



Where did I indicate I was afraid of this reality? Are you ever able to debate this subject without making up shit? Both in terms of data as well as personal insinuation?


----------



## Samson

westwall said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry jiggs, there is no there  there, you are just a kook hollering about made up things things pretending  you know things.
> Best to stop and just pretend it never happened and post about  your favorite color  or shapes you used to recognize .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be sorry. Just answer the question, or accept that your platform is baseless.
> 
> I'll just keep calling you on your latest round of horseshit: Why is it "made up?"
> 
> Why are you guys utterly unable to answer the ultimate question? Where is the oil? In what amount?  You won't respond, because you can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?
> 
> I'm supposed to believe _YOU_ know exactly where the oil is, and in what amount.
> 
> For the past 50 years attention whores like you have lived in the spotlight you get whenever you begin screeching about "Peak Oil" to a new class of impressionable college freshman.
> 
> Even they wonder how much shit you are full of by the end of their Junior Year.
Click to expand...


----------



## westwall

JiggsCasey said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The oil is wherever it is needed it seems to me.  Whenever we need more Saudi Arabia seems magically to be able to ramp up production to whatever is needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A few too many "seems" are written in that passage. This is a transparent and hollow attempt to answer a challenge you don't have a figure for. It gets worse and worse for you as this goes along.
> 
> Saudi does NOT "magically" ramp up production anymore, only suggests it can. You couldn't possibly know Saudi's capability, because no one is allowed to independently verify their reserve totals. All we have to go on are their desperate actions, like calling in Halliburton, resorting to water injections, and pouring millions into offshore infrastructure.
> 
> Sometimes circumstantial evidence is far more convincing than direct evidence.
> 
> Example -
> Direct evidence: You come in and tell me it's raining outside.
> Circumstantial evidence: You come in, soaked and drawing down and umbrella, but don't say a word.
> 
> Now, which is more convincing that it's actually raining outside?
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> More to the point if peak oil had truly been reached the price per barrel would rapidly be escalating to 200 or more per barrel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it wouldn't. That's an assanine assumption, considering global recession that resulted in the short spike flatlined global demand and sent the price plummeting just as quickly. Either way, the longterm price is rising, and the ramifications are (and will continue to be) economic upheaval.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a little bit like saying the football is spotted somewhere between the 20 yard lines. And it most certainly isn't "stuck" at all... It only crept past $80 a few short weeks ago, and continue to creep upward.
> 
> 
> 
> Great. And where does it say anything refuting demand's affect? You just threw a bunch of links out there, and just made up a cause/effect assertion. LOL.
> 
> The difference here is that I can admit speculation plays a part in it. You, however, REFUSE to admit the undeniable conditions of supply depletion, nor demand growth.
> 
> 
> 
> That's quite a statement. Link please.
> 
> 
> 
> Among other things.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, the production rates are increasing and will be around 1.9 million barrels per day, with a further 7 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, we consume 21 million barrels per day, and 64 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas, and growing. We're still a bigger net importer each passing year, and that won't change. Miss the point much?
> 
> But, increasing since when? Last week? 5 years ago? 10? Put your statement into some form of context. Don't just throw some figures out there and think you've scored some point. LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> But go ahead keep on with the chicken little act.  There are allways some who choose to live in a perpetual state of fear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I indicate I was afraid of this reality? Are you ever able to debate this subject without making up shit? Both in terms of data as well as personal insinuation?
Click to expand...





Well here is just one for you, I am going to pull a you on you, go find the link they are all over the place, all you have to do is look.


Saudi Hikes Output by 300,000 bpd in May
May 16, 2008
Rigzone


Contrary to earlier reports, Saudi Arabia has increased its oil production by 300,000 barrels per day in response to orders from customers, mostly from the United States, and will pump 9.45 million bpd in June, Oil Minister Ali al-Nuaimi said on Friday.

"Every month, we receive (orders) from our customers worldwide. On May 10 we increased our response to our customers by 300,000 barrels because they asked for it," Nuaimi told reporters during a visit by U.S. President George W. Bush to Saudi Arabia.

He said additional demand came from about 50 customers, mostly U.S. clients, "and we responded to it on May 10."

"Our production for June will be 9.45 million barrels per day," he added. 


Your assertions are based on nothing but a theory dreamed up decades ago by a man who was a long time Shell employee and who's company continues to rake in tons of money from the various oil companies they work for.


----------



## mdn2000

Oils price is going up, Obama's stash is being given to Renewable energy, Renewable energy is a PIG for energy gobbling up tens of billions of dollars worth oil to extract and process the raw materials into the components for Green energy. Green energy is booming with Obama's stash, everything else is down world wide.

Wind turbines and Solar panels, eating massive amounts of energy and resources, the most expensive for a reason.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

JiggsCasey said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry jiggs, there is no there  there, you are just a kook hollering about made up things things pretending  you know things.
> Best to stop and just pretend it never happened and post about  your favorite color  or shapes you used to recognize .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be sorry. Just answer the question, or accept that your platform is baseless.
> 
> I'll just keep calling you on your latest round of horseshit: Why is it "made up?"
> 
> Why are you guys utterly unable to answer the ultimate question? Where is the oil? In what amount?  You won't respond, because you can't.
Click to expand...


The question is, what shapes did you used to recognize ?


----------



## mdn2000

Today I travel from Madrid to Los Angeles, Thursday from Los Angeles to Rio De Janeiro, while buying my ticket I see a Carbon Offset company shaking people down for money on the Continental airlines website.

If I had the time I would make a thread, I mentioned the company to my Spanish co-workers and they state they have a carbon offset tax.


----------



## Big Fitz

And King Chicken Little the Last Rants on...

OIL IS GONE!  OIL IS GONE!  THERE IS NO MORE!  OIL IS GONE!


----------



## JiggsCasey

Mr.Fitnah said:


> The question is, what shapes did you used to recognize ?



In other words, you can't answer the question I put to you, and punted. LOL....  It's ok, Fitnerd... Far better posters than you are trying here, and they can't find it either.



Samson said:


> So?
> 
> I'm supposed to believe _YOU_ know exactly where the oil is, and in what amount.



No, no one does. Because it doesn't exist. Are you starting to get it now? 

I'm challenging your team to link to new oil going forward that will sustain our global appetite of 86 million barrels per day, and growing. I know you won't provide it, because it's not out there to be found. Period.



Samson said:


> For the past 50 years attention whores like you have lived in the spotlight you get whenever you begin screeching about "Peak Oil" to a new class of impressionable college freshman.



Vague, empty language, entirely unquantifiable hope-speak, and certainly not relevant. God, do you ever suck at this.

Among all the people I'm taking on here, you are by far the most useless. You haven't made a single point in this subforum. At least the others have.

I'm gonna get back to dealing with people who at least wanna discuss the figures now. Run along, smarmy. 



westwall said:


> Well here is just one for you, I am going to pull a you on you, go find the link they are all over the place, all you have to do is look.



Oh, I found your link. .... And you clearly cherry picked, because most of the blog is about obvious overall Saudi production decline. It's easy to point to a brief one-month increase of a piddly amount, assert its proof of perpetual glut, and simultaneously ignore all the other evidence of longterm Saudi decline. See below, o' great hope-based pundit:



> Saudi Hikes Output by 300,000 bpd in May
> May 16, 2008
> Rigzone
> 
> Contrary to earlier reports, Saudi Arabia has increased its oil production by 300,000 barrels per day in response to orders from customers, mostly from the United States, and will pump 9.45 million bpd in June, Oil Minister Ali al-Nuaimi said on Friday.
> 
> "Every month, we receive (orders) from our customers worldwide. On May 10 we increased our response to our customers by 300,000 barrels because they asked for it," Nuaimi told reporters during a visit by U.S. President George W. Bush to Saudi Arabia.
> 
> He said additional demand came from about 50 customers, mostly U.S. clients, "and we responded to it on May 10."
> 
> "Our production for June will be 9.45 million barrels per day," he added.



Wow... 300K? One month?  That should save us.

Unfortunately, here's what else your link - from saudioilproduction.blogspot - offered... oops:

_*One dramatic part of the data concerns a site called Ghawar, which has been the kingdom's workhorse field for decades. It shows the field producing 5.4 million barrels a day next year, but the volume then falling off rapidly, to 4.475 million daily barrels in 2013. "That's why Khurais is so important&#8212;to make up for that decrease," said the oil industry executive who released the data.
*_

*Simple arithmetic tells us that additions from Shaybah after 2013 will not offset Ghawar declines for more than one year. Business Week's source indicates that 10.4 million b/d is Saudi Arabia's maximum sustainable production level between 2009-2013. This number confirms what I wrote in The Saudis Are Blowing Smoke Again (ASPO-USA, March 12, 2008). 
*​


Samson said:


> Your assertions are based on nothing but a theory dreamed up decades ago.



Uh huh. You keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile, for all your bluster, and despite the fact that you've been taunted several times now to do so, *you still can't* quantify or locate where the new capacity is going to come from, going forward. That's because no one knows.

Pointing to 2 or 3 kiddie pools "refilling", and one vague estimate of Saudi reserves increasing a tiny bit ONE month unfortunately is doing ZERO for your overall argument of "everything is fine." Interestingly, you failed to mention that Saudi had LOST 1 million b/pd in production between 2005 and 2007.

Saudi oil production plans | Stock Market News & Stocks to Watch from StraightStocks 

Do better.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah




----------



## editec

WE (meanign most of us who are NOT experts in the field) really have NO IDEA how much oil is left.

WE are stuck with the EXPERTS OPIONS and since they disagree, those of us who are honest withourselves, ought to acknowledge that we don't know, but we are depending on the experts that we think know what's going on.

The price of gal went up 10 cents in the last two days.

That kind of price fluxuation has nothing whatever to do with the issue of peak oil.


----------



## JiggsCasey

editec said:


> WE (meanign most of us who are NOT experts in the field) really have NO IDEA how much oil is left.
> 
> WE are stuck with the EXPERTS OPIONS and since they disagree, those of us who are honest withourselves, ought to acknowledge that we don't know, but we are depending on the experts that we think know what's going on.



What experts disagree? On what? I'll wager any "expert" who is denying global oil depletion is no "expert" at all. The debate about peak among the experts is long over. 

If it wasn't, then the IEA, the U.S. Dept of Energy, and the Joint Chiefs wouldn't be telling the world peak is here, nor that decline is expected no later than 2015.



editec said:


> The price of gal went up 10 cents in the last two days.
> 
> That kind of price fluxuation has nothing whatever to do with the issue of peak oil.



It has everything to do with it. Price volatility is at the core of the "bumpy plateau" aspect of peak.

The Oil Drum | Whither The Bumpy Plateau?

Cliff notes:

1. Price shock (as the capacity limit is breached)
2. Economic recession cutting demand
3. Price collapse (the market overreacts to small imbalances between surplus and shortage)
4. Economic recovery [followed by increased demand]
5. Price shock (as the falling capacity limits are again breached)

What matters is the wider trend. It's like variance in poker. Over 500 hands, there will be wild dips and spikes, and no real pattern ascertained. But, over 50,000 hands, what is the trend? Up or down? 

As it pertains to oil, that trend is undeniably "up." And up considerably the past 6 years since global production began to flatline in 2004.


----------



## Samson

JiggsCasey said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> So?
> 
> I'm supposed to believe _YOU_ know exactly where the oil is, and in what amount.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, no one does. Because it doesn't exist. Are you starting to get it now?
> 
> I'm challenging your team to link to new oil going forward that will sustain our global appetite of 86 million barrels per day, and growing. I know you won't provide it, because it's not out there to be found. Period.
Click to expand...


Why?

I'm not debating that oil is a non-renewable resource.

What I'm astonished with is that Peak Oil _THEORISTS_ somehow believe, and have believed, for every 5 years for the past 50 years that practically every major event in Human History is related (often through some wildly convoluted conspiracy theory), to the volume of oil that _YOU GUESS _may be on the planet, discounting any and all other energy sources, and the potential to develope energy sources.

The only possible explaination for such a ridiculously dogmatic POV is that the exploitation of oil equates to EVUL "capitalism," opposed to some vague notion of economics about which you seem to have a tenuous grasp, at best.


----------



## Old Rocks

So, we have all those carrier groups in the Mid-East for no reason at all. 

Peak oil, if you read King Hubberts articles, is a very sound concept, and has made successful predictions.


----------



## Samson

Old Rocks said:


> So, we have all those carrier groups in the Mid-East for no reason at all.
> 
> Peak oil, if you read King Hubberts articles, is a very sound concept, and has made successful predictions.




What a fucking idiot.

We have a carrier group in the China Sea, off Korea. I suppose that has some tangiential relationship to "Peak Oil" and Kevin Bacon.


----------



## JiggsCasey

Samson said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> So?
> 
> I'm supposed to believe _YOU_ know exactly where the oil is, and in what amount.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, no one does. Because it doesn't exist. Are you starting to get it now?
> 
> I'm challenging your team to link to new oil going forward that will sustain our global appetite of 86 million barrels per day, and growing. I know you won't provide it, because it's not out there to be found. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> I'm not debating that oil is a non-renewable resource.
Click to expand...


No, amazingly, you're just debating that it's a serious problem at all.



Samson said:


> What I'm astonished with is that Peak Oil _THEORISTS_ somehow believe, and have believed, for every 5 years for the past 50 years that practically every major event in Human History is related (often through some wildly convoluted conspiracy theory), to the volume of oil that _YOU GUESS _may be on the planet, discounting any and all other energy sources, and the potential to develope energy sources.



Not really an accurate depiction of what we believe, but I see the lame point you're trying to make, so I'll play along.

It took 50,000 years for man's population to get to 1 billion. Yet, 150 years later, we're at 7 billion. That's directly because of the advent of harnessing cheap, abundant fossil fuels. Period. Oil is at the heart of almost all geopolitical conflict and has been for decades. So, yeah, practically every major event since the early 20th Century, sure.

What's amusing is the way you guys can't grasp nuance and accept the ball park estimate given by world energy entities who track this stuff for the sake of the global economy. You  play the over-literal card at every turn. If we estimate the planet held 2.1 trillion barrels, and God came down and told us 2.3 trillion was the total sum, you clowns would declare victory. "Ah ha! You were wrong!!!!!!" 

You just don't get it, and don't want to get it. ...  The seismic models are basically correct.... Perhaps off by few dozen billion, maybe a hundred billion barrels, but whatever. ... The fact is, 1) new discoveries are not keeping up with dying existing capacity, and 2) global demand growth continues to rise (albeit slower than pre-meltdown 2008). Those are quantifiable and undeniable.



Samson said:


> The only possible explaination for such a ridiculously dogmatic POV is that the exploitation of oil equates to EVUL "capitalism," opposed to some vague notion of economics about which you seem to have a tenuous grasp, at best.



What an arrogant jackass. Clearly, I have a far better grasp of global economics than goofy you, because you still insist that economics dictates to energy. Ooops, dead wrong. Energy dictates to the markets.

The only "possible explanation," moron, is the geological data. Data that you can't deny, can't find to fight back, and can't fathom.

Do yourself a favor... and try reading more.

Shhh.

Rising oil prices, the recession and a new world order - The Mainichi Daily News


----------



## Samson

JiggsCasey said:


> Clearly, I have a far better grasp of global economics than goofy you, because you still insist that economics dictates to energy. Ooops, dead wrong. Energy dictates to the markets.





You've made my case.

Thanks.


----------



## JiggsCasey

Samson said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, I have a far better grasp of global economics than goofy you, because you still insist that economics dictates to energy. Ooops, dead wrong. Energy dictates to the markets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've made my case.
> 
> Thanks.
Click to expand...


LOL. Didn't read that link either, did you genius? .... Great punt tho.

Wow, has this thread ever been embarrassing for you. Might wanna sit the next few plays out.


----------



## Old Rocks

Samson and his peers never read the links provided, nor do they seem to have the capacity to understand basic science. Their whole point of view is based on the fat ass "the way things ought to be" POV. A disconnect with reality that will bite us all in the ass sooner than later.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Old Rocks said:


> Samson and his peers never read the links provided, nor do they seem to have the capacity to understand basic science. Their whole point of view is based on the fat ass "the way things ought to be" POV. A disconnect with reality that will bite us all in the ass sooner than later.



You mean like this?

BBC: "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming"

Phil Jones: "Yes..."


----------



## Samson

JiggsCasey said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, I have a far better grasp of global economics than goofy you, because you still insist that economics dictates to energy. Ooops, dead wrong. Energy dictates to the markets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've made my case.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL. Didn't read that link either, did you genius? .... Great punt tho.
> 
> Wow, has this thread ever been embarrassing for you. Might wanna sit the next few plays out.
Click to expand...


No, I find your absurd dogma entertaining.


----------



## westwall

JiggsCasey said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, I have a far better grasp of global economics than goofy you, because you still insist that economics dictates to energy. Ooops, dead wrong. Energy dictates to the markets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've made my case.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL. Didn't read that link either, did you genius? .... Great punt tho.
> 
> Wow, has this thread ever been embarrassing for you. Might wanna sit the next few plays out.
Click to expand...





This coming from a highschool dropout who doesn't understand basic English.  Riiiight.


----------



## JiggsCasey

westwall said:


> This coming from a highschool dropout who doesn't understand basic English.  Riiiight.



This, like your entire energy platform here, is complete guesswork based on nothing more than what you HOPE is true. 

For all your flutter, you're just not very good at this. ... Still, better than Sam.


----------



## Muhammed

Global oil production will not peak until global demand for oil peaks.


----------



## editec

Debating peak oil?

What a futile exercise that is.


----------



## Samson

JiggsCasey said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> This coming from a highschool dropout who doesn't understand basic English.  Riiiight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This, like your entire energy platform here, is complete guesswork based on nothing more than what you HOPE is true.
> 
> For all your flutter, you're just not very good at this. ... Still, better than Sam.
Click to expand...




From someone who wouldn't know an "Energy Platform" if it bit him on the ass....

Keep digging Casey, there's depths of stupid you still need to reach.


----------



## Old Rocks

Thus far Jiggs has displayed far more intelligence in his posts than you have, Samson. Your post consist of insults and unsupported opinion.


----------



## Samson

Old Rocks said:


> Thus far Jiggs has displayed far more intelligence in his posts than you have, Samson. Your post consist of insults and unsupported opinion.



Oh NO!!

I'm always concerned with the moron POV.


----------



## JiggsCasey

Samson said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thus far Jiggs has displayed far more intelligence in his posts than you have, Samson. Your post consist of insults and unsupported opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh NO!!
> 
> I'm always concerned with the moron POV.
Click to expand...


And yet, when challenged to actually debate the subject material, you punt to personal insinuation and baseless platitude. 

You don't know what you're talking about, and yet you keep hanging around for the last insecure word, confirming that your argument has zero traction.

You became irrelevant to this discussion about 18 pages ago.

I'll let you get back to yet another obligatory, ineffectual "but you're a moron" quip and let you feel better about your empty argument. When you wanna ever be a man and discuss the data, or show how the markets will just adjust and we'll pass seamlessly into a new paradigm, let me know.


----------



## skookerasbil

More bad news for the environmental crusader k00ks.............


Oil and coal FTMFW!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Terral

Hi Mdn2000:



mdn2000 said:


> We are finding new oil reserves every year, maybe not the USA but other countries ...



Wake the hell up already! The largest oil reserve in the world is under Gull Island, Alaska (story). The best authority on the vast Gull Island Oil Reserve is Lindsay Williams who wrote "*The Energy Non Crisis*" (link). 

All of this Peak Oil hype is nothing more than Big Oil generating another excuse to raise prices to support ongoing record oil profits on a stupid U.S./Global population that will believe anything ...

GL,

Terral


----------



## mdn2000

Terral said:


> Hi Mdn2000:
> 
> 
> 
> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are finding new oil reserves every year, maybe not the USA but other countries ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wake the hell up already! The largest oil reserve in the world is under Gull Island, Alaska (story). The best authority on the vast Gull Island Oil Reserve is Lindsay Williams who wrote "*The Energy Non Crisis*" (link).
> 
> All of this Peak Oil hype is nothing more than Big Oil generating another excuse to raise prices to support ongoing record oil profits on a stupid U.S./Global population that will believe anything ...
> 
> GL,
> 
> Terral
Click to expand...


Thanks, I have not heard of this, will research it as best I can


----------



## westwall

Muhammed said:


> Global oil production will not peak until global demand for oil peaks.






"Peak" gasoline may allready have been reached.  Exxon and others believe that by 2030 the fuel requirements will drop to 1969 levels.

Peak Gasoline Is Here

Peak Gasoline is here, how will WSDOT respond?  Build the City


----------



## JiggsCasey

Terral said:


> Wake the hell up already! The largest oil reserve in the world is under Gull Island, Alaska (story). The best authority on the vast Gull Island Oil Reserve is Lindsay Williams who wrote "*The Energy Non Crisis*" (link).



This is flat incorrect, and has been covered here a few times before. You can set your clock by the monthly appearance of some newcomer who trots out goofy Lindsey Williams' nonsense about Alaska. Do more research than to crow over the extrapolated rhetoric of a pastor who has zero idea what he's even talking about regarding geology and techtonics. Gull Island is an average field that is half depleted. If there was oil up there in any cost-effective abundance, the U.S. would have drilled it decades ago, and not seen its net importing status increase every year since the late 70s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prudhoe_Bay_Oil_Field



Terral said:


> All of this Peak Oil hype is nothing more than Big Oil generating another excuse to raise prices to support ongoing record oil profits on a stupid U.S./Global population that will believe anything ...
> 
> GL,
> 
> Terral



Right. Because it makes perfect sense for America to pour trillions into securing what's left of the global oil trade, and strip mine western Canada for the mere benefit of some rogue conspiracy by Big Oil. The fact that 34 of 51 oil producing nations are in terminal decline, and the IEA and Joint Chiefs have admitted global peak is here? Apparently that means nothing, and they're all in on the "conspiracy." 

Speaking of stupid.


----------



## mdn2000

Jiggs, great argument, you told someone he was wrong based on??????

Speaking of stupid Jiggs still has no produced the Peak Oil theory, I know, Jiggs posted it everywhere else at least 500 times so its just be ignored.

Talk about stupid.

hey jiggs, here is another company that is obviously stupid, maybe you can get a job with your analytical skills and advice them how they are wasting their money seeing how even if they do find oil its only enough for one day. How can oil companies be so stupid, must just be people who love destroying the earth over making profits.

BBC News - Falklands oil found by Desire Petroleum



> Falklands oil found by Desire Petroleum
> 
> A number of exploration companies are seeking oil in the Falklands
> Continue reading the main story
> Related stories
> 
> Well failure knocks Falkland Oil
> Oil company claims Falklands find
> Falkland Islands: Oil or no oil?
> A British exploration company says it has discovered oil off the Falkland Islands in the South Atlantic - the second such find this year.
> 
> Desire Petroleum said it would carry out further tests to assess the significance of the discovery.
> 
> It said it believed further oil fields would be found in the area.
> 
> Oil exploration around the Falklands has angered Argentina, which challenges British sovereignty over the islands it calls the Malvinas.
> 
> Desire Petroleum's shares went up by 24% on the news.
> 
> Long-running dispute
> Chairman of Desire Stephen Phipps called the find in the North Falkland Basin "highly encouraging."
> 
> Another British company, Rockhopper, found oil in the same area in May


----------



## JiggsCasey

mdn2000 said:


> Jiggs, great argument, you told someone he was wrong based on??????
> 
> Speaking of stupid Jiggs still has no produced the Peak Oil theory, I know, Jiggs posted it everywhere else at least 500 times so its just be ignored.



I don't understand your perpetual helplessness. What is it that you're still somehow confused about, genius? You argument is sorta like pretending strong goaltending isn't a key to hockey success because simply I haven't explained how or why. Are you that idiotic?

I've explained peak, and I've linked to numerous explanations of peak. Stop stalling, and actually read them. I know you vow to not watch videos and essays, so at this point, that's your own problem. You can't cover your eyes and keep squawking "prove it! i can't see it!" and not look like a complete ... Moron.

Now, as to your Falklands link, what is your point? How is that a "big" find? Is says nothing about any proven, recoverable totals. In fact, it even says:
_"It is not clear if either find will prove commercially viable."_

 You can keep alluding to a few tiny finds sprinkled here and there, but it does zero for your overall argument of "everything is fine." I've said numerous times that we are still finding oil. The point is, we are not finding it in any significant amount to keep up with existing dying capacity. What about that statement can you not get your big dumb head around?


----------



## westwall

JiggsCasey said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jiggs, great argument, you told someone he was wrong based on??????
> 
> Speaking of stupid Jiggs still has no produced the Peak Oil theory, I know, Jiggs posted it everywhere else at least 500 times so its just be ignored.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand your perpetual helplessness. What is it that you're still somehow confused about, genius? You argument is sorta like pretending strong goaltending isn't a key to hockey success because simply I haven't explained how or why. Are you that idiotic?
> 
> I've explained peak, and I've linked to numerous explanations of peak. Stop stalling, and actually read them. I know you vow to not watch videos and essays, so at this point, that's your own problem. You can't cover your eyes and keep squawking "prove it! i can't see it!" and not look like a complete ... Moron.
> 
> Now, as to your Falklands link, what is your point? How is that a "big" find? Is says nothing about any proven, recoverable totals. In fact, it even says:
> _"It is not clear if either find will prove commercially viable."_
> 
> You can keep alluding to a few tiny finds sprinkled here and there, but it does zero for your overall argument of "everything is fine." I've said numerous times that we are still finding oil. The point is, we are not finding it in any significant amount to keep up with existing dying capacity. What about that statement can you not get your big dumb head around?
Click to expand...





What about the fact that according to oil industry analysts and Exxon (and other oil company analysts) that peak gas has been hit?  If the demand for gasoline continues to fall then peak oil (if it even exists) is moot.  Isn't it.


----------



## JiggsCasey

westwall said:


> What about the fact that according to oil industry analysts and Exxon (and other oil company analysts) that peak gas has been hit?  If the demand for gasoline continues to fall then peak oil (if it even exists) is moot.  Isn't it.



No, it isn't. Crushed demand is a RAMIFICATION of peak, not a counter argument to it. Your latest weak ploy is sorta like saying that the inability of a drunk to afford booze means he suddenly no longer has to worry about his symptoms of liver disease.

What the F do you think falling demand for gas/oil means for complex societies utterly based on growth?


----------



## Old Rocks

Now Jiggs, you are asking them to hold more than one idea in their minds at a time. Really impossible for a Conservative.


----------



## Old Rocks

westwall said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jiggs, great argument, you told someone he was wrong based on??????
> 
> Speaking of stupid Jiggs still has no produced the Peak Oil theory, I know, Jiggs posted it everywhere else at least 500 times so its just be ignored.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand your perpetual helplessness. What is it that you're still somehow confused about, genius? You argument is sorta like pretending strong goaltending isn't a key to hockey success because simply I haven't explained how or why. Are you that idiotic?
> 
> I've explained peak, and I've linked to numerous explanations of peak. Stop stalling, and actually read them. I know you vow to not watch videos and essays, so at this point, that's your own problem. You can't cover your eyes and keep squawking "prove it! i can't see it!" and not look like a complete ... Moron.
> 
> Now, as to your Falklands link, what is your point? How is that a "big" find? Is says nothing about any proven, recoverable totals. In fact, it even says:
> _"It is not clear if either find will prove commercially viable."_
> 
> You can keep alluding to a few tiny finds sprinkled here and there, but it does zero for your overall argument of "everything is fine." I've said numerous times that we are still finding oil. The point is, we are not finding it in any significant amount to keep up with existing dying capacity. What about that statement can you not get your big dumb head around?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What about the fact that according to oil industry analysts and Exxon (and other oil company analysts) that peak gas has been hit?  If the demand for gasoline continues to fall then peak oil (if it even exists) is moot.  Isn't it.
Click to expand...


Auto Sales: U.S. and China Driving in Different Directions - Seeking Alpha

In 2009, China's auto sales surpassed those of the U.S., reaching 13 million units (cars and light trucks). This came as The Great Recession drove U.S. auto sales to a level far below the record of 17.4 million sales in 2005. By 2009 U.S. sales had plummeted to 10.4 million for the year.

*Maybe here in the US.*


----------



## westwall

JiggsCasey said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the fact that according to oil industry analysts and Exxon (and other oil company analysts) that peak gas has been hit?  If the demand for gasoline continues to fall then peak oil (if it even exists) is moot.  Isn't it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't. Crushed demand is a RAMIFICATION of peak, not a counter argument to it. Your latest weak ploy is sorta like saying that the inability of a drunk to afford booze means he suddenly no longer has to worry about his symptoms of liver disease.
> 
> What the F do you think falling demand for gas/oil means for complex societies utterly based on growth?
Click to expand...





Wow, have you ever taken a economics class?  Fuel useage worldwide has been dropping for a variety of reasons.  When a price drops on a commodity that is widely desired and used it drops for one reason.  There is too much of it.  In no case has a commodity that was needed and desired ever dropped in price due to lack of supply.  Get real.


----------



## westwall

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand your perpetual helplessness. What is it that you're still somehow confused about, genius? You argument is sorta like pretending strong goaltending isn't a key to hockey success because simply I haven't explained how or why. Are you that idiotic?
> 
> I've explained peak, and I've linked to numerous explanations of peak. Stop stalling, and actually read them. I know you vow to not watch videos and essays, so at this point, that's your own problem. You can't cover your eyes and keep squawking "prove it! i can't see it!" and not look like a complete ... Moron.
> 
> Now, as to your Falklands link, what is your point? How is that a "big" find? Is says nothing about any proven, recoverable totals. In fact, it even says:
> _"It is not clear if either find will prove commercially viable."_
> 
> You can keep alluding to a few tiny finds sprinkled here and there, but it does zero for your overall argument of "everything is fine." I've said numerous times that we are still finding oil. The point is, we are not finding it in any significant amount to keep up with existing dying capacity. What about that statement can you not get your big dumb head around?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about the fact that according to oil industry analysts and Exxon (and other oil company analysts) that peak gas has been hit?  If the demand for gasoline continues to fall then peak oil (if it even exists) is moot.  Isn't it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Auto Sales: U.S. and China Driving in Different Directions - Seeking Alpha
> 
> In 2009, China's auto sales surpassed those of the U.S., reaching 13 million units (cars and light trucks). This came as The Great Recession drove U.S. auto sales to a level far below the record of 17.4 million sales in 2005. By 2009 U.S. sales had plummeted to 10.4 million for the year.
> 
> *Maybe here in the US.*
Click to expand...





Yes that is true and we can only have an impact on what we do here is that not so?  We have had four years of declining gasoline usage here in the US and all the experts feel it is going to continue.  Maybe that's why the Chinese are so happy to come to the GOM and siphon up all that  oil that Jiggs is telling us doesn't exist.


----------



## JiggsCasey

westwall said:


> Wow, have you ever taken a economics class?



have you?



westwall said:


> Fuel useage worldwide has been dropping for a variety of reasons.



No, one main reason. People and businesses increasingly can't afford it, and the world remains in perpetual recession.



westwall said:


> When a price drops on a commodity that is widely desired and used it drops for one reason.  There is too much of it.



Horse shit. When demand is crushed due to price spike, it creates the illusion of "too much" of it.  Regardless, it only dropped for a few short months, correcting the over dramatic short-term spike.



westwall said:


> In no case has a commodity that was needed and desired ever dropped in price due to lack of supply.  Get real.



Get back to me when you're able to sort out the profound differences between long- and short-term economics.

When you're done, recognize that the price hasn't really dropped over the past 10-15 years, and continues to soar with no end in sight.

You're all over the place in this thread. And for all your blather, you can't refute the fact that global production has flat-lined since 2004, and you can't allude to where the fuel is going to come from to make up for the increasing supply gap, a gap acknowledged by the IEA, Joint Chiefs, U.S. Dept. of Energy, etc. Your entire argument in this sub-forum is based on hope. Certainly not data.


----------



## westwall

JiggsCasey said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, have you ever taken a economics class?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> have you?
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuel useage worldwide has been dropping for a variety of reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, one main reason. People and businesses increasingly can't afford it, and the world remains in perpetual recession.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> When a price drops on a commodity that is widely desired and used it drops for one reason.  There is too much of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horse shit. When demand is crushed due to price spike, it creates the illusion of "too much" of it.  Regardless, it only dropped for a few short months, correcting the over dramatic short-term spike.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> In no case has a commodity that was needed and desired ever dropped in price due to lack of supply.  Get real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get back to me when you're able to sort out the profound differences between long- and short-term economics.
> 
> When you're done, recognize that the price hasn't really dropped over the past 10-15 years, and continues to soar with no end in sight.
> 
> You're all over the place in this thread. And for all your blather, you can't refute the fact that global production has flat-lined since 2004, and you can't allude to where the fuel is going to come from to make up for the increasing supply gap, a gap acknowledged by the IEA, Joint Chiefs, U.S. Dept. of Energy, etc. Your entire argument in this sub-forum is based on hope. Certainly not data.
Click to expand...





Why, yes I have.  You clearly have not.  And you havn't addressed the fact that the US government has banned development in the US so it's not exactly a level playing field now is it.  Every analyst on the planet says the price of oil is being manipulated by commodities brokers.  Actual demand only supports a 30-35 dollar per barrel price, that's a fact.  The rest is investor manipulation.

Get back to us when you have something factual and meaningful to say.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> What the F do you think falling demand for gas/oil means for complex societies utterly based on growth?



Increased efficiency.


----------



## JiggsCasey

westwall said:


> Why, yes I have.  You clearly have not.  And you havn't addressed the fact that the US government has banned development in the US so it's not exactly a level playing field now is it.  Every analyst on the planet says the price of oil is being manipulated by commodities brokers.  Actual demand only supports a 30-35 dollar per barrel price, that's a fact.  The rest is investor manipulation.



I love when you people just trot out "that's a fact" without sourcing your nonsense. Every analyst on the planet? That's excellent.

Once again, that's 34 of 51 oil producing nations past peak, and another 6 at peak. Oops...  You can play with numbers and pretend short-term price points and speculation is the root cause.... But this is both a demand and supply problem. A FACT that you have yet to refute.

The Oil Drum | Is Peak Oil Real? A List of Countries Past Peak



westwall said:


> Get back to us when you have something factual and meaningful to say.



You mean like every post I provide? Yeah, thought so.


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the F do you think falling demand for gas/oil means for complex societies utterly based on growth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Increased efficiency.
Click to expand...


And when blue collar workers and small businesses can't afford the increased fuel costs and all the other costs that go along with it? Will they be "more efficient" by going out of business?


----------



## Old Rocks

Of course, were we to put major money into developing cheaply manufactured batteries such as the DBM Energy battery, or a zinc-air battery, there would not be that problem. Relitively cheap solar is already available, and improving every day. 

But these realistic solutions will be fought tooth and nail by the many of the very people that would benefit most from them.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the F do you think falling demand for gas/oil means for complex societies utterly based on growth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Increased efficiency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when blue collar workers and small businesses can't afford the increased fuel costs and all the other costs that go along with it? Will they be "more efficient" by going out of business?
Click to expand...


You asked a question with an obvious, and easy, answer. Now you are assembling a strawman. However, I'll play along. Who says people can't afford more efficiency? Lets demonstrate how efficiency works. In 2008 the price of gasoline hit about $4+/gal in the US. I went out and made a reallocation of capital and sold the pickup and collected a regular family sedan instead. So now, me being twice as efficient as before, I am spending LESS than what I did in 2008. This savings will continue until gasoline doubles in price to $8/gal. Efficiency is wonderful. Why would you pretend, through the use of such a ridiculous strawman, that increases in efficiency require bankruptcy? Find a better strawman.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> Once again, that's 34 of 51 oil producing nations past peak, and another 6 at peak. Oops...



So what happens when some of those 34 nations decide to peak again? Oops...


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Like Hitler in the bunker, Democrats know their end is near and want to take the US economy down with them


----------



## JiggsCasey

so poor...


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> You asked a question with an obvious, and easy, answer. Now you are assembling a strawman.



You really need a better grasp of what a straw man actually is. I didn't present your argument, I offered a follow-up question so that you could, hopefully, flesh out your already FAIL answer.

Follow the discussion more closely. You offered a smarmy, vague quip, then, when asked to follow it up, you ironically pretend I'm the one creating a straw man.



RGR said:


> However, I'll play along. Who says people can't afford more efficiency? Lets demonstrate how efficiency works. In 2008 the price of gasoline hit about $4+/gal in the US. I went out and made a reallocation of capital and sold the pickup and collected a regular family sedan instead. So now, me being twice as efficient as before, I am spending LESS than what I did in 2008. This savings will continue until gasoline doubles in price to $8/gal. Efficiency is wonderful. Why would you pretend, through the use of such a ridiculous strawman, that increases in efficiency require bankruptcy?



So typical of a free market con to come off looking blissfully oblivious to the plight of anyone in a lower income bracket, or without the financial maneuverability that you assert to have -- which is likely most people.  _"A reallocation of capital."_ Such empathy. It's this kind of pretentious terminology that does not represent the average blue collar worker at all. This may come as a surprise to you, junior Friedman, but huge swaths of America already ARE driving that family sedan, and it's all beat up, and often completely uninsured. Get it yet? 

$4 gas 30 months ago led to the greatest financial crash since 1929. ... Imagine what $4-5 gas today will mean, DURING a recession?

The point is, higher gas prices affect the whole of America, including interest rates and food prices. Your individual frugality and financial cushion does not represent the plight of America as a whole, and certainly not the plight of municipal budgets already stretched to the breaking point. How many states are bordering on insolvency again?

Gluttonous cons are all alike. Some just write better. ... You guys have zero empathy for anyone outside your own class structure. None. This above is the same kind of arrogant, RW elitist nonsense that asserted "they were told to leave New Orleans, they should have left New Orleans - it's their own damn fault!" ...  Yeah, because of course they all should have just packed up their Escalade and made the short trip up to their summer property in Arkansas to ride out the storm. Surely they all could have easily left.



RGR said:


> Find a better strawman.



Get a better grasp of what a straw man actually is. 

Until then, get ready to "reallocate your finances" again, while remaining in complete denial of the long-term symptoms. 

Oh, wait. You conceded it's a finite resource in another thread. Just that it's not a big deal.



RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, that's 34 of 51 oil producing nations past peak, and another 6 at peak. Oops...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what happens when some of those 34 nations decide to peak again? Oops...
Click to expand...


Tell you what. I'll offer you a challenge, cool guy: When you can link to any of them reaching their previous peak light crude production output (and beyond) for a full annual average going forward, you'll have a point. 

Until then, and I'm supremely confident you'll never be able to provide it, your statement is utterly empty. Again.


----------



## westwall

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked a question with an obvious, and easy, answer. Now you are assembling a strawman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really need a better grasp of what a straw man actually is. I didn't present your argument, I offered a follow-up question so that you could, hopefully, flesh out your already FAIL answer.
> 
> Follow the discussion more closely. You offered a smarmy, vague quip, then, when asked to follow it up, you ironically pretend I'm the one creating a straw man.
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, I'll play along. Who says people can't afford more efficiency? Lets demonstrate how efficiency works. In 2008 the price of gasoline hit about $4+/gal in the US. I went out and made a reallocation of capital and sold the pickup and collected a regular family sedan instead. So now, me being twice as efficient as before, I am spending LESS than what I did in 2008. This savings will continue until gasoline doubles in price to $8/gal. Efficiency is wonderful. Why would you pretend, through the use of such a ridiculous strawman, that increases in efficiency require bankruptcy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So typical of a free market con to come off looking blissfully oblivious to the plight of anyone in a lower income bracket, or without the financial maneuverability that you assert to have -- which is likely most people.  _"A reallocation of capital."_ Such empathy. It's this kind of pretentious terminology that does not represent the average blue collar worker at all. This may come as a surprise to you, junior Friedman, but huge swaths of America already ARE driving that family sedan, and it's all beat up, and often completely uninsured. Get it yet?
> 
> $4 gas 30 months ago led to the greatest financial crash since 1929. ... Imagine what $4-5 gas today will mean, DURING a recession?
> 
> The point is, higher gas prices affect the whole of America, including interest rates and food prices. Your individual frugality and financial cushion does not represent the plight of America as a whole, and certainly not the plight of municipal budgets already stretched to the breaking point. How many states are bordering on insolvency again?
> 
> Gluttonous cons are all alike. Some just write better. ... You guys have zero empathy for anyone outside your own class structure. None. This above is the same kind of arrogant, RW elitist nonsense that asserted "they were told to leave New Orleans, they should have left New Orleans - it's their own damn fault!" ...  Yeah, because of course they all should have just packed up their Escalade and made the short trip up to their summer property in Arkansas to ride out the storm. Surely they all could have easily left.
> 
> 
> 
> Get a better grasp of what a straw man actually is.
> 
> Until then, get ready to "reallocate your finances" again, while remaining in complete denial of the long-term symptoms.
> 
> Oh, wait. You conceded it's a finite resource in another thread. Just that it's not a big deal.
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, that's 34 of 51 oil producing nations past peak, and another 6 at peak. Oops...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what happens when some of those 34 nations decide to peak again? Oops...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell you what. I'll offer you a challenge, cool guy: When you can link to any of them reaching their previous peak light crude production output (and beyond) for a full annual average going forward, you'll have a point.
> 
> Until then, and I'm supremely confident you'll never be able to provide it, your statement is utterly empty. Again.
Click to expand...





Actually Jiggs, that was not the proximal cause of the economic crash.  The incessant media reports telling us we were in an economic free fall were.  All the other BS sprung from that.  then when the recovery was actually kinda sorta beginning the media once again began reporting that the sky was falling and th commodities brokers got involved and drove the price of oil through the roof, even though the demand was not there.

So we come to the basic question.  Are RGR's numbers, as regards the oil supply, correct?


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked a question with an obvious, and easy, answer. Now you are assembling a strawman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really need a better grasp of what a straw man actually is. I didn't present your argument, I offered a follow-up question so that you could, hopefully, flesh out your already FAIL answer.
Click to expand...


I didn't make an argument. And you didn't pose a follow up question, you assigned an implication to my answer. Which was ridiculous on its face. Like I said before, make a better strawman.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Follow the discussion more closely. You offered a smarmy, vague quip, then, when asked to follow it up, you ironically pretend I'm the one creating a straw man.



If I were you, I wouldn't want to discuss how easy it was to answer the question you posed either.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you pretend, through the use of such a ridiculous strawman, that increases in efficiency require bankruptcy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So typical of a free market con to remain blissfully oblivious to the plight of anyone in a lower income bracket, or without the financial maneuverability that you assert to have.
Click to expand...


I have asserted no financial maneuverability. I assembled a practical example showing how a capital realignment leading to increased efficiency has nothing to do with the health of small business owners nor their implied imminent bankruptcy.

Increased efficiency, in terms of spending less on fuel for an auto in the context of peak oil, for a lower income level, which you have alluded to, would also include walking, bicycling, taking a bus, riding the light rail, carpooling, etc etc. No capital realignment required at all. 



			
				Jiggsacasey said:
			
		

> This may come as a surprise to you, junior Friedman, but most of America already IS driving that family sedan, and it's all beat up, and often completely uninsured. Get it yet?



Nov/2010 vehicle sales in America break down to about 34% cars (all sizes), 40% light trucks, 9% SUV and 17% cross overs. Of the 5 most popular models that month, 2 pickups, 2 cars, 1 SUV/crossover. Seems like your version of reality certainly doesn't match new auto sales breakdowns, so there are obviously plenty of people with pickups to trade. You do realize that Ford and Chevy pickups are usually the sales leaders, and have been for decades, right? As far as your claim of who is, or is not, insured, well, 15% doesn't seem like the majority you are trying to sell.

What percentage of American cars are uninsured? | Answerbag



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> $4 gas 30 months ago led to the greatest financial crash since 1929. ... Imagine what $4-5 gas today will mean, DURING a recession?



The recession started in 12/2007. The peak gas price didn't hit until about July, 2008. Lets not pull the normal peaker nonsense of revisionist history please.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Oh, wait. You conceded it's a finite resource in another thread. Just that it's not a big deal.



Of course its a finite resource. People who have forgotten more about oil than you've ever known announced its demise to the world. In 1886. In Pittsburgh. What took you and the Keystone Cops of resources so long to notice?



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Tell you what. I'll offer you a challenge, cool guy: When you can link to any of them reaching their previous peak light crude production output (and beyond) for a full annual average going forward, you'll have a point.



No point is required. Only someone who buys blindly into peaker dogma would ever subdivide oil into the stuff they like, and the stuff they don't like. Whats wrong with dividing it by "easy to get" and "hard to get"? Whats wrong with only counting the black oil versus the green? Does your discrimination against condensate count as a targeted bias, or are you just ignorant of the differences? If I drill an oilfield which is both onshore and offshore, do I only count the part which is drilled from land and ignore the rest? You guys have been doing this ridiculous game for so long, I wonder if you even know the reality you are in anymore.

As far as multiple peaks in general, thats easy of course. It took what, some 15 years to recover from the 1978/79 global oil peak and cause yet another one? How long do you think we need to wait this time? Maybe another 15?



			
				Jiggscasey said:
			
		

> Until then, and I'm supremely confident you'll never be able to provide it, your statement is utterly empty. Again.



Wrong again, but in all the usual places. They don't teach you about the multiple peaks in at Peaker-Dogma-University do they? Saudi Arabia peaked in 1980, and then again here just recently! 30 years between those ones. Those crazy Russians peaked in about 1984, and then did it all over again recently. The UAE peaked in about 1975, and then again in 1991, and then again in 2008 or so. Who would have guessed that one? No one using Hubbert's method, right?! Dare I mention Algeria, Nigeria, China, Malaysia, the UK, Kuwait,  Canada, Mexico, perhaps we should leave Iran and Iraq out for now, the jury is still out on Iran, hard to tell with the sanctions and all.

Would you like to guess what portion of the worlds reserves DON'T follow Hubbert's curve? Considering your past confusion...I'll offer a hint....given the choices of MOST, or NOT MOST, its more likely to be most.


----------



## Mr. H.

I bought a couple of pin-on buttons at the mall today. They were in a shop full of 60's ish clothing and such. Two different styles, but they both say "No Offshore Oil Drilling"

The gal asked if I wanted a bag and I said "no thanks- I'm going to take them over there and throw them in the trash". She turned kind of pale.

I decided to keep them as trophies.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Should have taken the  bags as well


----------



## Mr. H.

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Should have taken the  bags as well



Nah - I believe in "reduce, reuse, recycle".


----------



## Big Fitz

I believe that has become a fraud.  BUT, if done because of economics, not morality, it's a good move.


----------



## mdn2000

Mr. H. said:


> I bought a couple of pin-on buttons at the mall today. They were in a shop full of 60's ish clothing and such. Two different styles, but they both say "No Offshore Oil Drilling"
> 
> The gal asked if I wanted a bag and I said "no thanks- I'm going to take them over there and throw them in the trash". She turned kind of pale.
> 
> I decided to keep them as trophies.



I wish you had as much money as the Liberals did when Obama got elected


----------



## Mr. H.

mdn2000 said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I bought a couple of pin-on buttons at the mall today. They were in a shop full of 60's ish clothing and such. Two different styles, but they both say "No Offshore Oil Drilling"
> 
> The gal asked if I wanted a bag and I said "no thanks- I'm going to take them over there and throw them in the trash". She turned kind of pale.
> 
> I decided to keep them as trophies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish you had as much money as the Liberals did when Obama got elected
Click to expand...


I doubt all the money in the world would have stemmed that tide. 

But, all tides recede and this one's going out fast.


----------



## mdn2000

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the F do you think falling demand for gas/oil means for complex societies utterly based on growth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Increased efficiency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when blue collar workers and small businesses can't afford the increased fuel costs and all the other costs that go along with it? Will they be "more efficient" by going out of business?
Click to expand...


Whats your answer to these same people who cannot afford the energy from Wind Turbines, Solar, and Geothermal, that is happening today. 

Without the lost of one drop of oil the advocates of Green Energy have created the scenario that you describe, so what is your answer.


----------



## Old Rocks

Poor little mnd and Walleyes just cannot stand the fact that the alternatives are now approaching more installed wattage every year than is coal and natural gas. And will soon far exceed the fossil fuels. Because they are coming down in price, while fossil fuels are going up in price.


----------



## westwall

Old Rocks said:


> Poor little mnd and Walleyes just cannot stand the fact that the alternatives are now approaching more installed wattage every year than is coal and natural gas. And will soon far exceed the fossil fuels. Because they are coming down in price, while fossil fuels are going up in price.






Wrong as usual olfraud.  I am all in favour of alternative energy sources.  I just want them to work and be as efficient as those we currently have.  Without having to rip the American taxpayer off in the process.  Every wind farm that is built exists solely because the American taxpayer is supporting it.  That is a simple fact.  Take away the taxpayer support and they fail.  The same goes for solar as well.  I think solar is a wonderful product for individual buildings and eventually may be useful in a powerplant scenario as well.  It just isn't right now.

You as usual confuse dislike of the concept for dislike of how it is implemented and abused.


----------



## TheTraveller

Unless _someone_ invests in using inefficient technologies, they won't develop. It doesn't have to be the government, but it had better be someone. Right now there's no real need for solar - what happens when peak oil hits?


----------



## westwall

TheTraveller said:


> Unless _someone_ invests in using inefficient technologies, they won't develop. It doesn't have to be the government, but it had better be someone. Right now there's no real need for solar - what happens when peak oil hits?






Instead of taking money from the taxpayer.  Filtering it through uncountable and un acountable bureaucrats, with all the waste fraud and corruption that entails, give any business involved in high tech research and green energy research a blanket cut of the taxes THEY have to pay.  I would be totally in favour of them having to pay zero taxes to the government for them and their workers.

You want to make it possible for innovation to happen do that.  Just giving them money with no need to compete and survive leads to fraud and waste.  There is currently no real incentive to succed.  The compaies know that the government is going to cover them no matter how badly they are run.


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> The recession started in 12/2007. The peak gas price didn't hit until about July, 2008. Lets not pull the normal peaker nonsense of revisionist history please.



That's not what I said, goalpost mover. I said  the financial crash, NOT the start of the recession. ... OBVIOUSLY referring to the overextended stock markets, and their very specific plummet in Sept. of 2008.

Try and follow along.



RGR said:


> No point is required. Only someone who buys blindly into peaker dogma would ever subdivide oil into the stuff they like, and the stuff they don't like. Whats wrong with dividing it by "easy to get" and "hard to get"? Whats wrong with only counting the black oil versus the green? Does your discrimination against condensate count as a targeted bias, or are you just ignorant of the differences? If I drill an oilfield which is both onshore and offshore, do I only count the part which is drilled from land and ignore the rest? You guys have been doing this ridiculous game for so long, I wonder if you even know the reality you are in anymore.



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

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



RGR said:


> As far as multiple peaks in general, thats easy of course. It took what, some 15 years to recover from the 1978/79 global oil peak and cause yet another one? How long do you think we need to wait this time? Maybe another 15?



Who claimed peak in 1978? What are you even talking about, straw man champion?



RGR said:


> Wrong again, but in all the usual places. They don't teach you about the multiple peaks in at Peaker-Dogma-University do they? Saudi Arabia peaked in 1980, and then again here just recently! 30 years between those ones. Those crazy Russians peaked in about 1984, and then did it all over again recently. The UAE peaked in about 1975, and then again in 1991, and then again in 2008 or so. Who would have guessed that one? No one using Hubbert's method, right?! Dare I mention Algeria, Nigeria, China, Malaysia, the UK, Kuwait,  Canada, Mexico, perhaps we should leave Iran and Iraq out for now, the jury is still out on Iran, hard to tell with the sanctions and all.



More goofiness supported by zero links backing up your vague claim. What are you even trying to say here? Let me know what the imaginary adversary in your head says in response to your made-up assertion of my position.

Who said Saudi peaked in 1980?   Who said Russia peaked in 1984? Was it the IEA? The DoE? Were sovereign governments saying so, like they are today (Germany, England)?

When you're done arguing with yourself, I'll be in the other thread, dismantling your "same as it's always been" DOGMA.

See you there, genius.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The recession started in 12/2007. The peak gas price didn't hit until about July, 2008. Lets not pull the normal peaker nonsense of revisionist history please.
> 
> 
> 
> I said  the financial crash, NOT the start of the recession. ... OBVIOUSLY referring to the overextended stock markets, and their very specific plummet in Sept. of 2008.
> Try and follow along.
Click to expand...


Sure. You are wrong. Spiking gas prices happened before the financial crash, and had nothing to do with it. Got it.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> LOL. Could you BE more pretentious when you misrepresent my point?



Peakers don't have a point, their job is to scare people by manipulating data, predicting, over and over again, that the world will end because of peak oil....always FUTURE peak oils I might add...they, like you, don't like talking about the ones in the past when people claimed the same things and they never happened. Do you even know the HISTORY of your church, and the number of times actually HONEST people have advocated running out or peak scenarios?



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

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



Of course I get it, you are the one who doesn't know anything. If it takes 2 barrels to get 5 to market I can make an absolute mint off that equation, every day for the rest of my life. Let me guess....you had a public school education, particularly in the math of what you just said?



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Who claimed peak in 1978? What are you even talking about, straw man champion?



Nobody claimed peak, it HAPPENED. Did you miss it? Global oil production peaked...and declined..the world wrung its hands, we were running out by the end of the 80's, our President told us so...it was horrifying. What, you were hiding in your basement the entire time?

Needless to say...like other past peaks....humans went out, gathered up more oil, and created another one. Happens all the time, you would known that if your job wasn't to sell the church's current position rather than discuss resource depletion at a rational level.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> More goofiness supported by zero links backing up your vague claim.



My claim was very specific. Your ignorance of your own theory is not my problem.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> When you're done arguing with yourself, I'll be in the other thread, dismantling your "same as it's always been" DOGMA.
> 
> See you there, genius.



But of course. You should bring over some more members of your congregation, one of you coming out from underneath a rock is hardly worth the effort. Particularly considering how poorly you understand the information contained within your Bible.


----------



## westwall

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The recession started in 12/2007. The peak gas price didn't hit until about July, 2008. Lets not pull the normal peaker nonsense of revisionist history please.
> 
> 
> 
> I said  the financial crash, NOT the start of the recession. ... OBVIOUSLY referring to the overextended stock markets, and their very specific plummet in Sept. of 2008.
> Try and follow along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. You are wrong. Spiking gas prices happened before the financial crash, and had nothing to do with it. Got it.
> 
> 
> 
> Peakers don't have a point, their job is to scare people by manipulating data, predicting, over and over again, that the world will end because of peak oil....always FUTURE peak oils I might add...they, like you, don't like talking about the ones in the past when people claimed the same things and they never happened. Do you even know the HISTORY of your church, and the number of times actually HONEST people have advocated running out or peak scenarios?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I get it, you are the one who doesn't know anything. If it takes 2 barrels to get 5 to market I can make an absolute mint off that equation, every day for the rest of my life. Let me guess....you had a public school education, particularly in the math of what you just said?
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody claimed peak, it HAPPENED. Did you miss it? Global oil production peaked...and declined..the world wrung its hands, we were running out by the end of the 80's, our President told us so...it was horrifying. What, you were hiding in your basement the entire time?
> 
> Needless to say...like other past peaks....humans went out, gathered up more oil, and created another one. Happens all the time, you would known that if your job wasn't to sell the church's current position rather than discuss resource depletion at a rational level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More goofiness supported by zero links backing up your vague claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My claim was very specific. Your ignorance of your own theory is not my problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you're done arguing with yourself, I'll be in the other thread, dismantling your "same as it's always been" DOGMA.
> 
> See you there, genius.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But of course. You should bring over some more members of your congregation, one of you coming out from underneath a rock is hardly worth the effort. Particularly considering how poorly you understand the information contained within your Bible.
Click to expand...





Well put.  Jiggs doesn't really have a clue, and I agree with you 2 barrels to get 5 is pretty much a no brainer.


----------



## RGR

westwall said:


> Well put.  Jiggs doesn't really have a clue, and I agree with you 2 barrels to get 5 is pretty much a no brainer.



Yeah, talk about someone not knowing anything about the oil or gas business, or ANY business. I give you 2, you give me 5, we get rich fast!


----------



## westwall

RGR said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well put.  Jiggs doesn't really have a clue, and I agree with you 2 barrels to get 5 is pretty much a no brainer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, talk about someone not knowing anything about the oil or gas business, or ANY business. I give you 2, you give me 5, we get rich fast!
Click to expand...





Well, as you so aptly put it, when the belief is based on faith you don't _need_ to know anything.


----------



## TheTraveller

westwall said:


> TheTraveller said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless _someone_ invests in using inefficient technologies, they won't develop. It doesn't have to be the government, but it had better be someone. Right now there's no real need for solar - what happens when peak oil hits?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of taking money from the taxpayer.  Filtering it through uncountable and un acountable bureaucrats, with all the waste fraud and corruption that entails, give any business involved in high tech research and green energy research a blanket cut of the taxes THEY have to pay.  I would be totally in favour of them having to pay zero taxes to the government for them and their workers.
> 
> You want to make it possible for innovation to happen do that.  Just giving them money with no need to compete and survive leads to fraud and waste.  There is currently no real incentive to succed.  The compaies know that the government is going to cover them no matter how badly they are run.
Click to expand...

I can sympathize with your sense that the government is inefficient. Yet, do you really think the market will work on this one by itself? I think peak oil is a serious problem, and the US lags behind Europe in preparedness for oil shortages.

What do you think about the military as a branch of government capable of solving the problem? The US military has always been a source of a lot of applied technology.


----------



## RGR

TheTraveller said:


> I think peak oil is a serious problem, and the US lags behind Europe in preparedness for oil shortages.



If you believe the Church Of Peak, peak oil happened 6 years ago now. Here is one of what I would characterize as the fruitbag contingent sounding the alarm!

Ruppert Says OH NOES! PEAK! EEK!

So...you appear to be under the impression that peak oil will cause oil shortages...why would you believe that? Have you been experiencing shortages in your neighborhood over the last 6 years since peak happened?


----------



## ralfy

Peak oil refers to maximum production rate, not reserves.

It wasn't the "Church of Peak" but the IEA that argued that conventional production peaked in 2005. That's also the reason why we are now more dependent on U.S. shale oil. The EIA argues that that will peak after only a few years.

Finally, one's "neighborhood" <> the world.


----------



## Mr. H.

ralfy said:


> Peak oil refers to maximum production rate, not reserves.
> 
> It wasn't the "Church of Peak" but the IEA that argued that conventional production peaked in 2005. That's also the reason why we are now more dependent on U.S. shale oil. The EIA argues that that will peak after only a few years.
> 
> Finally, one's "neighborhood" <> the world.


Negro, enlighten us on volume vs volumetrics.


----------



## bripat9643

JiggsCasey said:


> LOL.... you read the story, didn't you? What's the total they think they've found? Curiously no mention of that.  Yawn.
> 
> These "finds" pop up all the time, and every time, "nothing to see here" clowns insist it's evidence of oil abundance. Then, they get pinned down on acknowledging the figures, and they're forced to admit proven reserve totals in the tens of millions, or perhaps 2-3 billion barrels, at best. Every time.
> 
> Talk to me when you can allude to a centralized find of proven light crude in excess of 20-100 billion. Because that's what we used to find 2-3 times per year in the 40s, 50s and 60s, and that's what our empire is built upon. And we need to find about 7 "Ghawars" just to maintain stasis, going forward, let alone growth.
> 
> *edit* yup, as expected... 280 million barrels. Yawn-tacular.
> 
> _Preliminary analysis indicates that the Campos Basin has recoverable volumes of 280 million barrels of light oil. Geologically similar reservoirs had already been identified in the Santos Basin by drilling two wells in the Marlin Sul field. These discoveries are a result of the efforts and the modern technology that the company has been using in other production areas.?
> _​
> We use 85 million barrels each and every day. So I guess 3.5 days of new oil is "proof" that "everything is fine, and Hubbert's curve is some "myth".
> 
> Do better.



Proven reserves get larger every year, so your theory is obvious horseshit.


----------



## ralfy

bripat9643 said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.... you read the story, didn't you? What's the total they think they've found? Curiously no mention of that.  Yawn.
> 
> These "finds" pop up all the time, and every time, "nothing to see here" clowns insist it's evidence of oil abundance. Then, they get pinned down on acknowledging the figures, and they're forced to admit proven reserve totals in the tens of millions, or perhaps 2-3 billion barrels, at best. Every time.
> 
> Talk to me when you can allude to a centralized find of proven light crude in excess of 20-100 billion. Because that's what we used to find 2-3 times per year in the 40s, 50s and 60s, and that's what our empire is built upon. And we need to find about 7 "Ghawars" just to maintain stasis, going forward, let alone growth.
> 
> *edit* yup, as expected... 280 million barrels. Yawn-tacular.
> 
> _Preliminary analysis indicates that the Campos Basin has recoverable volumes of 280 million barrels of light oil. Geologically similar reservoirs had already been identified in the Santos Basin by drilling two wells in the Marlin Sul field. These discoveries are a result of the efforts and the modern technology that the company has been using in other production areas.?
> _​
> We use 85 million barrels each and every day. So I guess 3.5 days of new oil is "proof" that "everything is fine, and Hubbert's curve is some "myth".
> 
> Do better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proven reserves get larger every year, so your theory is obvious horseshit.
Click to expand...


The problem isn't reserves but gravity and other physical factors. That's why even with decades' worth of conventional production worldwide we are still resorting to U.S. shale oil.


----------



## JiggsCasey

bripat9643 said:


> Proven reserves get larger every year, so your theory is obvious horseshit.



Well, if you raise the price of oil to $300, you can raise (claimed) proven reserves ever higher...    Doesn't really say anything about the average consumer being able to buy it, however. 

The industry doesn't seem to want to re-examine those "proven" reserve totals with oil closer to $50, now do they?


----------



## Vandalshandle

Why should any of us worry about our seemly infinite demand for a finite resource? Fiddle De De! let our grandkids worry about it!


----------



## KissMy

RGR said:


> TheTraveller said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think peak oil is a serious problem, and the US lags behind Europe in preparedness for oil shortages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe the Church Of Peak, peak oil happened 6 years ago now. Here is one of what I would characterize as the fruitbag contingent sounding the alarm!
> 
> Ruppert Says OH NOES! PEAK! EEK!
> 
> So...you appear to be under the impression that peak oil will cause oil shortages...why would you believe that? Have you been experiencing shortages in your neighborhood over the last 6 years since peak happened?
Click to expand...

There were shortages, price spikes, empty gas stations & tanks here over the last 10 years since the 2005 peak.


----------



## JiggsCasey

Gosh, where is our resident tight oil deep throater, RGR?

Kemp: U.S. oil production is probably peaking right now
(according to EIA data)

So, if robust U.S. production growth is all that has kept tepid global growth going, what happens to global flow rates when the U.S. can no longer grow?

Shale oil was always a lie, wasting our water, lowering the value of our oil due to its crappy grade and lower BTU efficiency.

_While the EIA's Brent price forecast is largely unchanged, prices for West Texas Intermediate crude have been marked down through the rest of 2015 and 2016, *reflecting the build-up of crude stocks and persistent weakness of U.S. grades*. The number of rigs drilling for oil has fallen further and faster than was anticipated last year. Baker Hughes reported there were 802 rigs drilling for oil last week, down exactly 50 percent since early October._​


----------



## watchingfromafar

*China Aims to Spend at Least $360 Billion on Renewable Energy by 2020

China intends to spend more than $360 billion through 2020 on renewable power sources like solar and wind, the government’s energy agency said on Thursday.*

The country’s National Energy Administration laid out a plan to dominate one of the world’s fastest-growing industries, just at a time when the United States is set to take the opposite tack as Donald J. Trump, a climate-change doubter, prepares to assume the presidency.

The agency said in a statement that China would create more than 13 million jobs in the renewable energy sector by 2020, curb the growth of greenhouse gasses that contribute to global warming and reduce the amount of soot that in recent days has blanketed Beijing and other Chinese cities in a noxious cloud of smog.

China surpassed the United States a decade ago as the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gasses, and now discharges about twice as much. For years, its oil and coal industries prospered under powerful political patrons and the growth-above-anything mantra of the ruling Communist Party.
China Aims to Spend at Least $360 Billion on Renewable Energy by 2020

2017 China Electric Car Sales Blow World Out Of The Water — BAIC EC-Series Is A Superstar

The rise and rise of the Chinese plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) market is unstoppable, with yet another record performance in December. A total of 102,000 new passenger PEVs were registered last month, up 130% year over year. Yes, that was just December, and it pulled the year-to-date count to over 600,000 units, up 71% compared to 2016.

As consequence of this rapid growth, in December, the PEV share hit a record 3.3% market share of the entire Chinese auto market, while the entire 2017 PEV market share ended at 2.1%. That’s firmly ahead of last year’s score (1.5%) and above the USA (1.2%) and Europe (~1.9%).

*The Chinese PEV market represented roughly half of the 1.2 million plug-ins sold worldwide in 2017, while Chinese carmakers made 47% of all PEVs sold last year.*
2017 China Electric Car Sales Blow World Out Of The Water — BAIC EC-Series Is A Superstar | CleanTechnica


----------



## watchingfromafar

China's latest energy megaprojects show that coal is really on the way out

Leanna Garfield - May. 9, 2018
China's latest energy megaprojects show that coal is really on the way out"....To improve the country's air quality, the Chinese government vows to spend at least $360 billion on clean energy projects and create 13 million new renewable energy jobs by 2020.

China's latest energy megaprojects — two giant solar farms in Anhui, one of which will go online in May — could get the country closer to that goal.

In late 2017, the country built a massive floating solar farm on top of a former coal mine that had collapsed and flooded.

This year marks China's fourth anniversary since it started a "war on pollution," and there's reason to believe the country is making headway

Looking at over 200 monitors throughout China, a new analysis found that Chinese cities have cut concentrations of fine particulates — often considered the deadliest type of pollution — by 32% on average since 2013.

China is already one of the world's biggest investors in alternative energy sources like solar, wind, and hydropower.

The two new solar farms signal the slow decline of fossil fuels like coal in China and other countries around the world.

***China is one of the biggest countries to make a significant move Away from coal*. Last year, the country Cancelled 104 new coal plants that were in development across 13 provinces.**

****TRUMP'S GREAT PLAIN*****
Nada
Zero
Zip
live for the moment!!​


----------



## westwall

watchingfromafar said:


> *China Aims to Spend at Least $360 Billion on Renewable Energy by 2020
> 
> China intends to spend more than $360 billion through 2020 on renewable power sources like solar and wind, the government’s energy agency said on Thursday.*
> 
> The country’s National Energy Administration laid out a plan to dominate one of the world’s fastest-growing industries, just at a time when the United States is set to take the opposite tack as Donald J. Trump, a climate-change doubter, prepares to assume the presidency.
> 
> The agency said in a statement that China would create more than 13 million jobs in the renewable energy sector by 2020, curb the growth of greenhouse gasses that contribute to global warming and reduce the amount of soot that in recent days has blanketed Beijing and other Chinese cities in a noxious cloud of smog.
> 
> China surpassed the United States a decade ago as the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gasses, and now discharges about twice as much. For years, its oil and coal industries prospered under powerful political patrons and the growth-above-anything mantra of the ruling Communist Party.
> China Aims to Spend at Least $360 Billion on Renewable Energy by 2020
> 
> 2017 China Electric Car Sales Blow World Out Of The Water — BAIC EC-Series Is A Superstar
> 
> The rise and rise of the Chinese plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) market is unstoppable, with yet another record performance in December. A total of 102,000 new passenger PEVs were registered last month, up 130% year over year. Yes, that was just December, and it pulled the year-to-date count to over 600,000 units, up 71% compared to 2016.
> 
> As consequence of this rapid growth, in December, the PEV share hit a record 3.3% market share of the entire Chinese auto market, while the entire 2017 PEV market share ended at 2.1%. That’s firmly ahead of last year’s score (1.5%) and above the USA (1.2%) and Europe (~1.9%).
> 
> *The Chinese PEV market represented roughly half of the 1.2 million plug-ins sold worldwide in 2017, while Chinese carmakers made 47% of all PEVs sold last year.*
> 2017 China Electric Car Sales Blow World Out Of The Water — BAIC EC-Series Is A Superstar | CleanTechnica






Good for them.  That way, for once, we get to steal their technology!  Win/win!


----------



## KissMy

Saudi is buying Tesla. They know the end of cheap oil is near with EXPLODING Oil Consumption in China, India & Africa.


----------



## westwall

KissMy said:


> Saudi is buying Tesla. They know the end of cheap oil is near with EXPLODING Oil Consumption in China, India & Africa.








There is now more oil known in reserves underground, than there was for the previous 5 Peak Oil predictions.


----------



## KissMy

westwall said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saudi is buying Tesla. They know the end of cheap oil is near with EXPLODING Oil Consumption in China, India & Africa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is now more oil known in reserves underground, than there was for the previous 5 Peak Oil predictions.
Click to expand...


Expensive to extract tight oil that cost 10 times more.


----------



## watchingfromafar

westwall said:


> There is now more oil known in reserves underground, than there was for the previous 5 Peak Oil predictions.



I would really like to believe this; maybe even as much as you would but then reality steps in and washes away that wet dream.


----------



## westwall

watchingfromafar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is now more oil known in reserves underground, than there was for the previous 5 Peak Oil predictions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would really like to believe this; maybe even as much as you would but then reality steps in and washes away that wet dream.
Click to expand...






You should try doing this thing they call "research".  It's AMAZING what you can learn!  And that is the problem with peak oilers, you seem to live in this flat earther bubble where technology doesn't exist.

*The World’s Largest Oil Reserves By Country*
Proven oil reserves are those that have a reasonable certainty of being recoverable under existing economic and political conditions, with existing technology.
The World’s Largest Oil Reserves By Country


----------



## Manonthestreet

The Quiet Rise In U.S. Offshore Oil Production


----------



## watchingfromafar

North Sea is running too dry to meet target
Wednesday July 4, 2007
North Sea is running too dry to meet target

The real casus belli: peak oil
Tuesday June 26, 2007
David Strahan: The real casus belli: peak oil

Science Panel Finds Fault With Estimates of Coal Supply
Published: June 21, 2007 Science Panel Finds Fault With Estimates of Coal Supply

Chevron announces that they now have 11.8 years of oil left at current production levels after aquiring Unocal reserves
07/08/05
Foiled Bid Stirs Worry for U.S. Oil

An Oil Enigma: Production Falls Even as Reserves Rise
Published: June 12, 2004
An Oil Enigma: Production Falls Even as Reserves Rise

"The decline of oil and gas will affect the world population more than climate change"
https://tinyurl.com/y9vjsms2

In January 2001, the U.S.
Department of Energy estimated the world's supply of unexploited oil reserves the world supply of oil will be totally exhausted 35 years from now (June 2003).
http://members.aol.com/mpwright9/oil.html

World oil and gas 'running out'
Thursday, October 2, 2003 Posted: 1245 GMT ( 8:45 PM HKT)
https://tinyurl.com/y9vjsms2

The Oil Crunch
Published: May 7, 2004
The question, instead, is when the trend in oil prices will turn decisively upward. That upward turn is inevitable as a growing world economy confronts a resource in limited supply. But when will it happen? Maybe it already has.
The Oil Crunch

Natural gas markets undergo turbulent transition as domestic production declines
Tuesday, December 16, 2003
https://tinyurl.com/ybpe8z7o

"Texas' oil resource is pretty well picked over," 
https://tinyurl.com/y7zcarzf

Oman's Oil Yield Long in Decline, Shell Data Show
Published: April 8, 2004
OMAN'S OIL YIELD LONG IN DECLINE, SHELL DATA SHOW

Half of Texas’s oil wells have dried up in the past 40 years and there are very few new ones.
https://tinyurl.com/y7zcarzf

Tight Oil Supply Won't Ease Soon
Published: May 16, 2004
Two dollars for a gallon of gas? Get used to it. High fuel prices are here to stay, at least for the near future, because no relief is in sight for tight oil supplies.
TIGHT OIL SUPPLY WON'T EASE SOON

*The end of the Fossil Fuel era is upon us so what are we going to do next-?*


----------



## westwall

watchingfromafar said:


> North Sea is running too dry to meet target
> Wednesday July 4, 2007
> North Sea is running too dry to meet target
> 
> The real casus belli: peak oil
> Tuesday June 26, 2007
> David Strahan: The real casus belli: peak oil
> 
> Science Panel Finds Fault With Estimates of Coal Supply
> Published: June 21, 2007 Science Panel Finds Fault With Estimates of Coal Supply
> 
> Chevron announces that they now have 11.8 years of oil left at current production levels after aquiring Unocal reserves
> 07/08/05
> Foiled Bid Stirs Worry for U.S. Oil
> 
> An Oil Enigma: Production Falls Even as Reserves Rise
> Published: June 12, 2004
> An Oil Enigma: Production Falls Even as Reserves Rise
> 
> "The decline of oil and gas will affect the world population more than climate change"
> https://tinyurl.com/y9vjsms2
> 
> In January 2001, the U.S.
> Department of Energy estimated the world's supply of unexploited oil reserves the world supply of oil will be totally exhausted 35 years from now (June 2003).
> http://members.aol.com/mpwright9/oil.html
> 
> World oil and gas 'running out'
> Thursday, October 2, 2003 Posted: 1245 GMT ( 8:45 PM HKT)
> https://tinyurl.com/y9vjsms2
> 
> The Oil Crunch
> Published: May 7, 2004
> The question, instead, is when the trend in oil prices will turn decisively upward. That upward turn is inevitable as a growing world economy confronts a resource in limited supply. But when will it happen? Maybe it already has.
> The Oil Crunch
> 
> Natural gas markets undergo turbulent transition as domestic production declines
> Tuesday, December 16, 2003
> https://tinyurl.com/ybpe8z7o
> 
> "Texas' oil resource is pretty well picked over,"
> https://tinyurl.com/y7zcarzf
> 
> Oman's Oil Yield Long in Decline, Shell Data Show
> Published: April 8, 2004
> OMAN'S OIL YIELD LONG IN DECLINE, SHELL DATA SHOW
> 
> Half of Texas’s oil wells have dried up in the past 40 years and there are very few new ones.
> https://tinyurl.com/y7zcarzf
> 
> Tight Oil Supply Won't Ease Soon
> Published: May 16, 2004
> Two dollars for a gallon of gas? Get used to it. High fuel prices are here to stay, at least for the near future, because no relief is in sight for tight oil supplies.
> TIGHT OIL SUPPLY WON'T EASE SOON
> 
> *The end of the Fossil Fuel era is upon us so what are we going to do next-?*








Really?  You rely on ancient information to push your narrative.  How about giving us some more recent reports.  They tend to blow your alarmism right out of the water.


----------



## frigidweirdo

mdn2000 said:


> We are finding new oil reserves every year, maybe not the USA but other countries. Brazil is extremely active and in the last couple years they have become Oil independent. Soon if not today they hope to be an exporter of petroleum.
> 
> Seems like professor's and scientist's theories are proven wrong, what is theory of Peak Oil in light of recent petroleum discoveries.
> 
> OilVoice | Petrobras Announces Discovery of Light Oil to the South of Santos Basin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. - Petrobras announces that it has confirmed the presence of light oil in well 1-BRSA-870-SPS (1-SPS-76), located to the south of Santos Basin, in sandstones reservoirs, similar to those found in the accumulations of Tiro and Sidon. The discovery is located around 15 km of the Tiro and Sidon area.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This discovery confirms the success of the exploratory strategy in the search for the formation of a new production hub in the southeastern part of Santos Basin which may be integrated by a series of already discovered fields, such as Caravela, Cavalo Marinho, Coral and Tiro-Sidon, as well as others to be discovered or in evaluation process, such as that of well 1-BRSA-870-SPS in the Marujá prospect.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


There's a certain amount of oil, oil takes a long time to be produced. That we didn't know about oil sources that we're finding doesn't stop that oil isn't infinite.


----------



## watchingfromafar

westwall said:


> Really? You rely on ancient information to push your narrative. How about giving us some more recent reports. They tend to blow your alarmism right out of the water.



The articles below state that; "at current consumption rate" all the oil reserves will be gone in 53 years. But of course we consume more and more than the previous year so the above estimate is a bit off.

Please note, it will "all" be gone in 53 years. Believe me the panic will set in way before then.

Total global oil reserves are estimated at 2,092 billion barrels, or 70 times the current production rate of about 30 billion barrels of oil a year. For comparison, cumulatively produced oil through 2015 amounted to 1,300 billion barrels.
*U.S. Holds Most Recoverable Oil Reserves*

BP's annual report on proved global oil reserves says that as of the end of 2013, Earth has nearly 1.688 trillion barrels of crude, *which will last 53.3 years at current rates of extraction*. This figure is 1.1 percent higher than that of the previous year.14 Jul 2014

*The world has 53.3 years left* to find an alternative to oil before current proved reserves run dry, according to BP. Of course, nations are finding new oil – meaning that number is rising – but new extraction methods are costly and can pose environmental threats.
*How long will world's oil reserves last? 53 years, says BP*

Going, going.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,gone, never to return again


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? You rely on ancient information to push your narrative. How about giving us some more recent reports. They tend to blow your alarmism right out of the water.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The articles below state that; "at current consumption rate" all the oil reserves will be gone in 53 years. But of course we consume more and more than the previous year so the above estimate is a bit off.
> 
> Please note, it will "all" be gone in 53 years. Believe me the panic will set in way before then.
> 
> Total global oil reserves are estimated at 2,092 billion barrels, or 70 times the current production rate of about 30 billion barrels of oil a year. For comparison, cumulatively produced oil through 2015 amounted to 1,300 billion barrels.
> *U.S. Holds Most Recoverable Oil Reserves*
> 
> BP's annual report on proved global oil reserves says that as of the end of 2013, Earth has nearly 1.688 trillion barrels of crude, *which will last 53.3 years at current rates of extraction*. This figure is 1.1 percent higher than that of the previous year.14 Jul 2014
> 
> *The world has 53.3 years left* to find an alternative to oil before current proved reserves run dry, according to BP. Of course, nations are finding new oil – meaning that number is rising – but new extraction methods are costly and can pose environmental threats.
> *How long will world's oil reserves last? 53 years, says BP*
> 
> Going, going.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,gone, never to return again
Click to expand...


*Please note, it will "all" be gone in 53 years. *

20 years ago, how long was it before it was all gone?


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> 20 years ago, how long was it before it was all gone?



20 years ago we didn't have the science/technology  we have today. But just between you and me, why should you or I care; we will be dead by then but then again; It's my grandchildren that I am concerned about.

How about you?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 20 years ago, how long was it before it was all gone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 20 years ago we didn't have the science/technology  we have today. But just between you and me, why should you or I care; we will be dead by then but then again; It's my grandchildren that I am concerned about.
> 
> How about you?
Click to expand...


*20 years ago we didn't have the science/technology we have today. *

Wait one second!!!
Are you saying taking current, recoverable reserves and dividing by current annual usage to come up with a date (53 years) when all the oil will be gone is moronic because technology to recover oil is constantly improving????
Is that what you're trying to say?


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Wait one second!!!



No, not seconds, 53 years.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Are you saying taking current, recoverable reserves and dividing by current annual usage to come up with a date (53 years) when all the oil will be gone


No I am not saying it, BP plc, formerly British Petroleum and BP Amoco, is a British multinational oil and gas company headquartered in London, England is saying it.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> is moronic because technology to recover oil is constantly improving????



You are calling me stupid which I take as an offence which I will not forget
moronic
məˈrɒnɪk/Submit
adjectiveinformal
very foolish or stupid.
I will see you on the other side, this I can assure you



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Is that what you're trying to say?



I am sure you hear me just fine old man


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait one second!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not seconds, 53 years.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying taking current, recoverable reserves and dividing by current annual usage to come up with a date (53 years) when all the oil will be gone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I am not saying it, BP plc, formerly British Petroleum and BP Amoco, is a British multinational oil and gas company headquartered in London, England is saying it.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> is moronic because technology to recover oil is constantly improving????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are calling me stupid which I take as an offence which I will not forget
> moronic
> məˈrɒnɪk/Submit
> adjectiveinformal
> very foolish or stupid.
> I will see you on the other side, this I can assure you
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what you're trying to say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sure you hear me just fine old man
Click to expand...


*No I am not saying it, BP plc, formerly British Petroleum and BP Amoco, is a British multinational oil and gas company headquartered in London, England is saying it.*

If BP said all the oil will be gone in 53 years, they're dumber than you are.

*You are calling me stupid*

Truth hurts, eh?

_In fact, during the past 10 years proven reserves have risen by 27 percent, or more than 350 billion barrels._

Darn, looks like BP really said during the past 10 years proven reserves have risen by more than 11 years worth of usage.


----------



## westwall

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 20 years ago, how long was it before it was all gone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 20 years ago we didn't have the science/technology  we have today. But just between you and me, why should you or I care; we will be dead by then but then again; It's my grandchildren that I am concerned about.
> 
> How about you?
Click to expand...







Technology will rise to the occasion.  You complain about your grandchildren not having any fossil fuels, yet you want to stop using them now when they are the most efficient form of energy we have.  Fossil fuels are the bridge to new energy systems, my bet is on hydrogen fuel cells, but regardless, fossil fuels will be supplanted by the next big thing... And wind and solar are not those big things


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

westwall said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 20 years ago, how long was it before it was all gone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 20 years ago we didn't have the science/technology  we have today. But just between you and me, why should you or I care; we will be dead by then but then again; It's my grandchildren that I am concerned about.
> 
> How about you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Technology will rise to the occasion.  You complain about your grandchildren not having any fossil fuels, yet you want to stop using them now when they are the most efficient form of energy we have.  Fossil fuels are the bridge to new energy systems, my bet is on hydrogen fuel cells, but regardless, fossil fuels will be supplanted by the next big thing... And wind and solar are not those big things
Click to expand...


Hydrogen is a pain. Methane fuel cells would be much better.


----------



## KissMy

10 to 20 years from now oil will be 10 times higher, thanks to ever increasing Republican deficits. Buy solar shingles / panels today & they will be worth more every year & still be producing power 50+ years from now!


----------



## watchingfromafar

westwall said:


> Fossil fuels are the bridge to new energy systems, my bet is on hydrogen fuel cells, but regardless, fossil fuels will be supplanted by the next big thing... And wind and solar are not those big things



I agree with you but having said that, it is in our best interest that we start looking for alternatives before we "have to" start looking for alternatives due to shortages.

Trump needs to mandate this change, but as you and I know; he won't.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> In fact, during the past 10 years proven reserves have risen by 27 percent, or more than 350 billion barrels.



In fact is you failed to provide a link to support your claim. 

I want to say, liar, liar, pants on fire but I won't cause I'm a gentleman


----------



## westwall

Toddsterpatriot said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 20 years ago, how long was it before it was all gone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 20 years ago we didn't have the science/technology  we have today. But just between you and me, why should you or I care; we will be dead by then but then again; It's my grandchildren that I am concerned about.
> 
> How about you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Technology will rise to the occasion.  You complain about your grandchildren not having any fossil fuels, yet you want to stop using them now when they are the most efficient form of energy we have.  Fossil fuels are the bridge to new energy systems, my bet is on hydrogen fuel cells, but regardless, fossil fuels will be supplanted by the next big thing... And wind and solar are not those big things
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hydrogen is a pain. Methane fuel cells would be much better.
Click to expand...






Possibly.  To be honest I am open to both.  What I do KNOW, is EV's (absent a Nicola Tesla broadcast energy system) are not the way to go.


----------



## westwall

watchingfromafar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fossil fuels are the bridge to new energy systems, my bet is on hydrogen fuel cells, but regardless, fossil fuels will be supplanted by the next big thing... And wind and solar are not those big things
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you but having said that, it is in our best interest that we start looking for alternatives before we "have to" start looking for alternatives due to shortages.
> 
> Trump needs to mandate this change, but as you and I know; he won't.
Click to expand...







We are, what is BAD is for the government to step in and award money based on politics instead of science.  That is what is happening now, that is both wasteful, and tragic at the same time.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, during the past 10 years proven reserves have risen by 27 percent, or more than 350 billion barrels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact is you failed to provide a link to support your claim.
> 
> I want to say, liar, liar, pants on fire but I won't cause I'm a gentleman
Click to expand...


*In fact is you failed to provide a link to support your claim. *

Ummmm...it's from your link, idiot.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

westwall said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 20 years ago, how long was it before it was all gone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 20 years ago we didn't have the science/technology  we have today. But just between you and me, why should you or I care; we will be dead by then but then again; It's my grandchildren that I am concerned about.
> 
> How about you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Technology will rise to the occasion.  You complain about your grandchildren not having any fossil fuels, yet you want to stop using them now when they are the most efficient form of energy we have.  Fossil fuels are the bridge to new energy systems, my bet is on hydrogen fuel cells, but regardless, fossil fuels will be supplanted by the next big thing... And wind and solar are not those big things
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hydrogen is a pain. Methane fuel cells would be much better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly.  To be honest I am open to both.  What I do KNOW, is EV's (absent a Nicola Tesla broadcast energy system) are not the way to go.
Click to expand...


Since the supply of readily available methane is billions (trillions?) of times larger than the supply of readily available hydrogen...……..

EVs would be fine if they were powered by nuclear energy instead of coal.


----------



## westwall

Toddsterpatriot said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 20 years ago, how long was it before it was all gone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 20 years ago we didn't have the science/technology  we have today. But just between you and me, why should you or I care; we will be dead by then but then again; It's my grandchildren that I am concerned about.
> 
> How about you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Technology will rise to the occasion.  You complain about your grandchildren not having any fossil fuels, yet you want to stop using them now when they are the most efficient form of energy we have.  Fossil fuels are the bridge to new energy systems, my bet is on hydrogen fuel cells, but regardless, fossil fuels will be supplanted by the next big thing... And wind and solar are not those big things
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hydrogen is a pain. Methane fuel cells would be much better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly.  To be honest I am open to both.  What I do KNOW, is EV's (absent a Nicola Tesla broadcast energy system) are not the way to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the supply of readily available methane is billions (trillions?) of times larger than the supply of readily available hydrogen...……..
> 
> EVs would be fine if they were powered by nuclear energy instead of coal.
Click to expand...








Yup.  Methane has a couple of advantages over hydrogen.  However it also has a couple of big disads, namely its efficiency is pretty poor at the present tech level.  Add to that its toxicity and there are problems to overcome.  But they CAN be overcome.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Ummmm...it's from your link, idiot.



Oh poor baby, you hurt my feelings. 
Once I stop crying I am going to dsign off.


----------



## KissMy

westwall said:


> What I do KNOW, is EV's (absent a Nicola Tesla broadcast energy system) are not the way to go.


The sun broadcast free energy every day! It's harvested by solar shingles / panels, turbines, & bio-fuel crops every day & used to propel our vehicles down the road every day!


----------



## westwall

KissMy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I do KNOW, is EV's (absent a Nicola Tesla broadcast energy system) are not the way to go.
> 
> 
> 
> The sun broadcast free energy every day! It's harvested by solar shingles / panels, turbines, & bio-fuel crops every day & used to propel our vehicles down the road every day!
Click to expand...









Yeah, and it would take 72 days of sunlight to recharge your Tesla.  You willing to wait that long to go on a drive?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

KissMy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I do KNOW, is EV's (absent a Nicola Tesla broadcast energy system) are not the way to go.
> 
> 
> 
> The sun broadcast free energy every day! It's harvested by solar shingles / panels, turbines, & bio-fuel crops every day & used to propel our vehicles down the road every day!
Click to expand...


Love my sun powered gasoline.


----------



## KissMy

westwall said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I do KNOW, is EV's (absent a Nicola Tesla broadcast energy system) are not the way to go.
> 
> 
> 
> The sun broadcast free energy every day! It's harvested by solar shingles / panels, turbines, & bio-fuel crops every day & used to propel our vehicles down the road every day!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and it would take 72 days of sunlight to recharge your Tesla.  You willing to wait that long to go on a drive?
Click to expand...

It takes 9 days to use all the battery power in a Tesla battery. 9 solar panels will keep it charged up.


----------



## westwall

KissMy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I do KNOW, is EV's (absent a Nicola Tesla broadcast energy system) are not the way to go.
> 
> 
> 
> The sun broadcast free energy every day! It's harvested by solar shingles / panels, turbines, & bio-fuel crops every day & used to propel our vehicles down the road every day!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and it would take 72 days of sunlight to recharge your Tesla.  You willing to wait that long to go on a drive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It takes 9 days to use all the battery power in a Tesla battery. 9 solar panels will keep it charged up.
Click to expand...








Where do you people come from.  You can drain a Tesla in a couple of hours of driving.


----------



## KissMy

westwall said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I do KNOW, is EV's (absent a Nicola Tesla broadcast energy system) are not the way to go.
> 
> 
> 
> The sun broadcast free energy every day! It's harvested by solar shingles / panels, turbines, & bio-fuel crops every day & used to propel our vehicles down the road every day!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, and it would take 72 days of sunlight to recharge your Tesla.  You willing to wait that long to go on a drive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It takes 9 days to use all the battery power in a Tesla battery. 9 solar panels will keep it charged up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you people come from.  You can drain a Tesla in a couple of hours of driving.
Click to expand...


Idiot! You can't legally drive 335 miles in 2 hours. The average US vehicle takes 9 days to drive that far. 9 solar panels will produce enough to power the average vehicle the 13,500 miles they travel every year.


----------



## westwall

KissMy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I do KNOW, is EV's (absent a Nicola Tesla broadcast energy system) are not the way to go.
> 
> 
> 
> The sun broadcast free energy every day! It's harvested by solar shingles / panels, turbines, & bio-fuel crops every day & used to propel our vehicles down the road every day!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, and it would take 72 days of sunlight to recharge your Tesla.  You willing to wait that long to go on a drive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It takes 9 days to use all the battery power in a Tesla battery. 9 solar panels will keep it charged up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you people come from.  You can drain a Tesla in a couple of hours of driving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiot! You can't legally drive 335 miles in 2 hours. The average US vehicle takes 9 days to drive that far. 9 solar panels will produce enough to power the average vehicle the 13,500 miles they travel every year.
Click to expand...






Depends on how fast you drive, and whether it is cold etc. etc. etc.  I REGULARLY legally drive 350 miles in just over 4.5 hours.  We have 80 mph speed limits out where i live, so clearly it is you who are the idiot.


----------



## KissMy

westwall said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sun broadcast free energy every day! It's harvested by solar shingles / panels, turbines, & bio-fuel crops every day & used to propel our vehicles down the road every day!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and it would take 72 days of sunlight to recharge your Tesla.  You willing to wait that long to go on a drive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It takes 9 days to use all the battery power in a Tesla battery. 9 solar panels will keep it charged up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you people come from.  You can drain a Tesla in a couple of hours of driving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiot! You can't legally drive 335 miles in 2 hours. The average US vehicle takes 9 days to drive that far. 9 solar panels will produce enough to power the average vehicle the 13,500 miles they travel every year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on how fast you drive, and whether it is cold etc. etc. etc.  I REGULARLY legally drive 350 miles in just over 4.5 hours.  We have 80 mph speed limits out where i live, so clearly it is you who are the idiot.
Click to expand...


Dear Idiot 4.5 hours is not 2 hours!!! You don't drive that far every day!!! You don''t drive 128,000 miles a year!!!


----------



## Wyatt earp

KissMy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and it would take 72 days of sunlight to recharge your Tesla.  You willing to wait that long to go on a drive?
> 
> 
> 
> It takes 9 days to use all the battery power in a Tesla battery. 9 solar panels will keep it charged up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you people come from.  You can drain a Tesla in a couple of hours of driving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiot! You can't legally drive 335 miles in 2 hours. The average US vehicle takes 9 days to drive that far. 9 solar panels will produce enough to power the average vehicle the 13,500 miles they travel every year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on how fast you drive, and whether it is cold etc. etc. etc.  I REGULARLY legally drive 350 miles in just over 4.5 hours.  We have 80 mph speed limits out where i live, so clearly it is you who are the idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Idiot 4.5 hours is not 2 hours!!! You don't drive that far every day!!! You don''t drive 128,000 miles a year!!!
Click to expand...


How the fuck do you know how many miles he drives? And where did you get the average of 350 miles in 9 days? More like 3 days


----------



## KissMy

Guinness book of world record driver don't drive 100,000 miles a year, but you retards claim to drive over 127,000 miles a year! LOL!!!!!!

The average is 13,500 miles a year!


----------



## evenflow1969

CrusaderFrank said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is cute:
> 
> <Snipping stuff Rdean doesn't understand anyway>
> 
> Seriously, Homo sapiens is about 200,000 years old in the fossil record. Is this the best we can do?[/B]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly not, maybe you should stop posting? That would help
Click to expand...

God has not put more oil in the ground. My wells in north east ohio are still nearly dry, not worth pumping. I would like to see those checks again but n o matter how much I wish or you wish it ain't gunna happen they have been pumped dry. Wish I could live in the fantasy land you live in!


----------



## westwall

KissMy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and it would take 72 days of sunlight to recharge your Tesla.  You willing to wait that long to go on a drive?
> 
> 
> 
> It takes 9 days to use all the battery power in a Tesla battery. 9 solar panels will keep it charged up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you people come from.  You can drain a Tesla in a couple of hours of driving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiot! You can't legally drive 335 miles in 2 hours. The average US vehicle takes 9 days to drive that far. 9 solar panels will produce enough to power the average vehicle the 13,500 miles they travel every year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on how fast you drive, and whether it is cold etc. etc. etc.  I REGULARLY legally drive 350 miles in just over 4.5 hours.  We have 80 mph speed limits out where i live, so clearly it is you who are the idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Idiot 4.5 hours is not 2 hours!!! You don't drive that far every day!!! You don''t drive 128,000 miles a year!!!
Click to expand...






Dear bigger idiot, if you drive a Tesla in cold weather your range drops by half.  No, I don't drive 128,000 a year.  That's not what I said, are you stupid?   Oh wait...it's you....you _*ARE*_ stupid!


----------



## westwall

evenflow1969 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is cute:
> 
> <Snipping stuff Rdean doesn't understand anyway>
> 
> Seriously, Homo sapiens is about 200,000 years old in the fossil record. Is this the best we can do?[/B]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly not, maybe you should stop posting? That would help
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God has not put more oil in the ground. My wells in north east ohio are still nearly dry, not worth pumping. I would like to see those checks again but n o matter how much I wish or you wish it ain't gunna happen they have been pumped dry. Wish I could live in the fantasy land you live in!
Click to expand...






Actually we don't know that.  There is evidence of oil reservoirs in Texas recharging.  The Mexican Hat oil field in Utah should have run dry years and years ago, but it is still pumping.  The fact is we really don't know how oil is created.  We have a theory, one that is supported by some factual evidence, but there is also a theory the oil is abiotic, and there is significant evidence to support that theory as well.


----------



## evenflow1969

westwall said:


> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is cute:
> 
> <Snipping stuff Rdean doesn't understand anyway>
> 
> Seriously, Homo sapiens is about 200,000 years old in the fossil record. Is this the best we can do?[/B]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly not, maybe you should stop posting? That would help
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God has not put more oil in the ground. My wells in north east ohio are still nearly dry, not worth pumping. I would like to see those checks again but n o matter how much I wish or you wish it ain't gunna happen they have been pumped dry. Wish I could live in the fantasy land you live in!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually we don't know that.  There is evidence of oil reservoirs in Texas recharging.  The Mexican Hat oil field in Utah should have run dry years and years ago, but it is still pumping.  The fact is we really don't know how oil is created.  We have a theory, one that is supported by some factual evidence, but there is also a theory the oil is abiotic, and there is significant evidence to support that theory as well.
Click to expand...

Bull shit I check mine monthly has not changed. It had the condtiions before to produce oil and has not changed in thirty years. I can believe your horse shit or my own tests. Please show me your evidence! Would love to see it!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Secret recipe for oil: rocks + water; apply pressure.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Oil doesn’t just give us gasoline and diesel fuel, we also get the following from oil----------


----------



## Sunsettommy

JiggsCasey said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, everyone you mention stands to profit if they are to be believed. Imagine, Total, oil company right, wants the public to believe we are at the peak, production, supply, known reserves, either way as long as people believe Total's claim, the price per barrel of oil will be perceived as of greater value.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exxon and Chevron denies it. So there goes that premise that Big Oil wants it.
> 
> 
> 
> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about that BP well in the gulf, so much damned oil it blew up and could hardly be contained.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Emptiness. The Macondo Prospect held 55 million barrels, total. That's enough energy to get us through about 2/3 of a day at current consumption rates. Hardly proof of "plenty".
> 
> Do better.
> 
> 
> 
> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how much longer this peak will last, most likely hundreds of thousands of years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Peak is already here. Terminal decline will begin by roughly 2015. Evidenced by the rising price of fuel today, the price of food, the geopolitical climate and the geological data which shows that new discoveries are not keeping up with dying capacity.
> 
> As for your allies here relying on personal ridicule, and utterly unable to counter the data (that assclown Samson foremost among them), that's fine. Keep your focus on me, and keep ducking the reality of the global energy crisis that is on our doorstep. You all represent the kinds of people in power who are the real doomers, stalling progress towards acknowledging this reality, and stalling from ever doing anything about it.
> 
> You'll learn, when your grocery bill doubles and triples within a few years. And/Or global trade war breaks out.
> 
> For all your posturing and arrogant ignorance, tell us then, how these former petrol geologists and Big Oil CEOs are somehow wrong (you won't, because you can't):
> 
> [ame]
> [ame]
Click to expand...


Nope it is still going up in production:

"The World Keeps Not Running Out of Oil"  (Petroleum Geologist is the author) July 2017

Whatever happened to fears over “peak oil”?  (Same Petroleum Geologist making detailed comments in the thread) June 2018

It's Been A Tough Week For Peak Oil Theorists (Author has 39 year career in the Oil and Gas industry) September 2017


----------



## there4eyeM

Intelligence succumbs to greed.


----------



## Wyatt earp

evenflow1969 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is cute:
> 
> <Snipping stuff Rdean doesn't understand anyway>
> 
> Seriously, Homo sapiens is about 200,000 years old in the fossil record. Is this the best we can do?[/B]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly not, maybe you should stop posting? That would help
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God has not put more oil in the ground. My wells in north east ohio are still nearly dry, not worth pumping. I would like to see those checks again but n o matter how much I wish or you wish it ain't gunna happen they have been pumped dry. Wish I could live in the fantasy land you live in!
Click to expand...



How the fuck you think it got there in the first place Einstein??


.


----------



## airplanemechanic

I gotta give Crusaderfrank credit. That dude has been participating in this same thread for 8 years. 

Hats off to him.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

airplanemechanic said:


> I gotta give Crusaderfrank credit. That dude has been participating in this same thread for 8 years.
> 
> Hats off to him.


Thank the Koch Brothers for paying me fairly to keep doing this


----------



## Wyatt earp

bear513 said:


> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is cute:
> 
> <Snipping stuff Rdean doesn't understand anyway>
> 
> Seriously, Homo sapiens is about 200,000 years old in the fossil record. Is this the best we can do?[/B]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly not, maybe you should stop posting? That would help
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God has not put more oil in the ground. My wells in north east ohio are still nearly dry, not worth pumping. I would like to see those checks again but n o matter how much I wish or you wish it ain't gunna happen they have been pumped dry. Wish I could live in the fantasy land you live in!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How the fuck you think it got there in the first place Einstein??
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...







Yeah yeah we know...


----------



## evenflow1969

bear513 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> evenflow1969 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is cute:
> 
> <Snipping stuff Rdean doesn't understand anyway>
> 
> Seriously, Homo sapiens is about 200,000 years old in the fossil record. Is this the best we can do?[/B]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly not, maybe you should stop posting? That would help
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God has not put more oil in the ground. My wells in north east ohio are still nearly dry, not worth pumping. I would like to see those checks again but n o matter how much I wish or you wish it ain't gunna happen they have been pumped dry. Wish I could live in the fantasy land you live in!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How the fuck you think it got there in the first place Einstein??
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah yeah we know...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 210572
Click to expand...

Aliens is a neat idea, but natural pocsesses is how it got there!


----------



## watchingfromafar

Sunsettommy said:


> ope it is still going up in production:



I looked at one of your articles & I actually read it instead of just cut and paste the link. In your link it actually states---

_"Hubbert projected that the global peak in crude oil production would occur around the year 2000 at 34 million bpd . In reality, crude oil production in 2000 was* more than twice as high* at about 75 million bpd. Further, while* conventional crude oil production did flatten around 2005*, more than a decade later there is no evidence that it has begun to decline. (Overall global production has continued to grow, primarily because of the rise of shale oil production). So this was a big miss.

Hubbert’s defenders will argue that he only really missed the date of the conventional crude oil peak by 5 years. But, his methodology specifies a peak and decline. That is not what we have seen. In fact, until conventional crude begins to decline in earnest we really don’t know how far off the mark his peak 2000 prediction may be."
_
Peak oil is down played because we are pumping out more and more each year while this is not an indication of over supply, Oil is "finite" and anyone who tells you otherwise is just wrong.

Peak oil curve--------------------


----------



## watchingfromafar

Oil/gas are finite and I will not live long enough to see its end so I am no longer going to debate this. I have better things to do with the time I have left.

I wish all of you a great day and beyond.
bye


----------



## Sunsettommy

watchingfromafar said:


> Oil/gas are finite and I will not live long enough to see its end so I am no longer going to debate this. I have better things to do with the time I have left.
> 
> I wish all of you a great day and beyond.
> bye



You also wrote this silliness:

"Peak oil is down played because we are pumping out more and more each year while this is not an indication of over supply, Oil is "finite" and anyone who tells you otherwise is just wrong.

Peak oil curve--------------------"

No because  Peak oil believers have been WRONG for well over 100 years now, which is why they are being mocked for their latest obvious false claims, to which you make clear of your ignorance on this.

Here is what YOU left out that exposes your dishonesty: The article is from 2015, the ones I posted are much more recent with developments not even known in 2015.

"*Peak Oil date*

Looking back at Hubbert’s Peak in Figure 2, it is striking just how accurate Hubbert was for 50 years, and equally striking that after 50 years of impressive accuracy, it went badly wrong (see the production surge from 2007 in Figure 4). So – what happened, and are there good lessons to be learned?

If you read Hubbert’s paper [5], you will note that he bases his estimates on very few numbers. The most important number was the total amount of oil. For the graph in Figure 2, total oil in the USA was put at 200 billion barrels (“Bbbl”). Hubbert didn’t actually know what the correct number was, so he estimated for 150 Bbbl and for 200 Bbbl. The graph for 200 Bbbl proved remarkably accurate.

Where Hubbert went wrong (50 years later) was that he did not make proper allowance for the “unconventional” oil, even though he knew of its existence. The combination of technological advance and high oil prices resulted in a massive surge in USA production of “unconventional” oil from around 2007. There was therefore a major departure from Hubbert’s predictions for the USA (Figure 4).

Put simply, all we have to do in order to correct Hubbert’s predictions for the surge in “unconventional” oil is to update the figure for total oil TR. The other principal figures Hubbert used were current production rate and rate of demand growth, and of course new values for those should be used too.

Hubbert put initial global TR (today’s TR plus all past production) at 1,250 Bbbl, and predicted global Peak Oil in 2010, based on the theory that Peak Oil occurs when about half of the TR has been produced. 2013 production rate was around 32 Bbbl per year, so using Hubbert’s theory and our new figure for TR, we can do a rough calculation on an “all other things being equal” basis, of when Peak Oil will occur (see spreadsheet [16]):

If global initial TR was 5,000 Bbbl and future production growth rate is 3% pa, then Peak Oil occurs around 2036. At lower growth rates (2%, 1%) the date is only slightly later (2038, 2041). The truly fascinating aspect of these figures is that a quadrupling of initial TR from 1,250 to 5,000 Bbbl only adds about 30 years to the likely Peak Oil date.

Over the last few decades, oil production has grown at around 1.3% pa [2] on average. In spite of the recent surge in USA “unconventional” oil production, global oil production has slowed a bit in recent years to about 1.1% pa. With USA shale/tight oil production expected to decline from 2020 [17], it may be difficult to maintain a positive global production growth rate from then on. Peak Oil is when the global growth rate hits zero."


----------



## Sunsettommy

Where to start?

Peak oil is real and irrelevant. Oil is a finite commodity. In general, global production will follow a logistic function. The ultimate peak production rate will occur sometime around when we’ve recovered half of the recoverable resource. The total recoverable resource is unknown, but very fracking YUGE. Much YUGER than Hubbert thought it was.

Here’s how Peak Oil works: As of the end of 2014, total US cumulative production was 212 Bbbl, proved reserves were 40 Bbbl and the estimated total undiscovered recoverable resource was 130 Bbbl. If that was the sum total of the estimated ultimate recovery (EUR), then US Peak Oil occurred in 2004…





This doesn’t mean that the production rate literally peaked in 2004. It means that a hundred years from now, if you fit a logistic function to the data, the peak would be around 2004. However, proved reserves are a moving target because they only represent a fraction of the oil that is likely to be produced from existing fields. “Reserves” has a very specific legal definition. In the US, “reserves” generally means proved reserves (1P). In less regulated nations, “reserves” often includes probable (2P) and/or possible (3P) reserves. Most of the “off limits” areas would fall under “prospective resources”…





In the US. “proved reserves” are the 1P number. This is the minimum volume of oil expected to be produced from a reservoir (>90% probability). Proved reserves go up all of the time without additional drilling because well performance converts 2P (50% probability) and some 3P (>10% probability) into 1P. Changing economic conditions can also move contingent resources into the 1P category.

As long as proved reserves and undiscovered resource potential remain steady or rise, each barrel of oil produced pushes Peak Oil further off into the future.

Most reserve additions don’t come from new discoveries. They come from reservoir management and field development operations. 





New discoveries are the brown curve at the bottom of the chart.

Recently Bloomberg put out a bar chart showing how the size of new oil discoveries has steadily shrunk over the past 70 years. Here’s that bar chart at the same scale as global crude oil production and reserve growth.





There’s an old saying in the oil patch: “Big fields get bigger.” The biggest field in the world, Saudi Arabia’s Ghawar oil field was discovered in 1948. When first discovered, the estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) was in the neighborhood of 60 Bbbl. It has produced over 65 Bbbl and it is estimated to have about 70 Bbbl remaining (EUR ~130 Bbbl). Half of Ghawar’s EUR was recognized at its discovery. Half of it, or more, will be the result of field development and reservoir management.





Oil production of Saudi Arabia (total) and the Ghawar field and the percentage of water cut in Ghawar 1993-2003. Ghawar production accounts for over half of annual Saudi crude. Water cut is the ratio of water to total liquids production from an oil field; in water-driven mature reservoirs water cut can reach up to 80-90 %. (Modified after A.M. Afifi, 2004 AAPG Distinguished Lecture; total oil production from BP Statistical Review of World Energy)

The King of Giant Fields.

People will often babble about conventional vs unconventional oil… This simply demonstrates an ignorance of the use of the word unconventional. Oil produced from shale is conventional oil. The boom in US oil production is due to oil produced from shale. The oil is conventional. The extraction process (massive frac jobs on horizontal wells in shale formations) is what’s unconventional.

“Oil shales” are unconventional oil, solid kerogen… This has not played a role in the boom in US oil production. If it ever becomes economically feasible to tap the unconventional oil of the Green River formation, Peak Oil will be put off “to infinity and beyond”…

And… There is no evidence whatsoever that crude oil is produced in the mantle from inorganic material… And it wouldn’t matter if it was."

LONG COMMENT By David Middelton


----------



## watchingfromafar

*PEAK OIL*

*Oil production forecasts on which predictions of peak oil* are based are sometimes made within a range which includes optimistic (higher production) and pessimistic (lower production) scenarios. A 2013 study concluded that *peak oil “appears probable before 2030*,” and that there was a *“significant risk” that it would occur before 2020*,[4] and assumed that major investments in alternatives will occur before a crisis, without requiring major changes in the lifestyle of heavily oil-consuming nations. Pessimistic predictions of future oil production made after 2007 state either that the peak has already occurred,[5][6][7][8] that *oil production is on the cusp of the peak, or that it will occur soon.[*9][10]

Peak oil - Wikipedia

*Oil production*

_World oil production rose by only 0.6 million b/d in 2017, *below average for the second consecutive year*_

*Production fell*_ in the Middle East (-250,000 b/d) and South & Central America (-240,000 Kb/d) but this was outweighed by growth from North America (820,000 b/d) and Africa (390,000 b/d)._

*Oil production | Oil | Statistical Review of World Energy | Energy economics | BP*


Folks, I am not a dooms day person that has lost all hope and just want you to fear the future too. I am an optimist just like others here but I am not relying on God to save us. If He wanted to save us He would not have allowed wars or the invention of the gun or hydrogen bomb. Instead He gave us the right to choose our own future and I am confident mankind will make the right choices when the time comes.

The world is, as I see it, unfolding as it should

My advice is to sit back, do the right thing when called upon to do so, smile and enjoy life while you can.

All things come to an end


----------



## Sunsettommy

watchingfromafar said:


> *PEAK OIL*
> 
> *Oil production forecasts on which predictions of peak oil* are based are sometimes made within a range which includes optimistic (higher production) and pessimistic (lower production) scenarios. A 2013 study concluded that *peak oil “appears probable before 2030*,” and that there was a *“significant risk” that it would occur before 2020*,[4] and assumed that major investments in alternatives will occur before a crisis, without requiring major changes in the lifestyle of heavily oil-consuming nations. Pessimistic predictions of future oil production made after 2007 state either that the peak has already occurred,[5][6][7][8] that *oil production is on the cusp of the peak, or that it will occur soon.[*9][10]
> 
> Peak oil - Wikipedia
> 
> *Oil production*
> 
> _World oil production rose by only 0.6 million b/d in 2017, *below average for the second consecutive year*_
> 
> *Production fell*_ in the Middle East (-250,000 b/d) and South & Central America (-240,000 Kb/d) but this was outweighed by growth from North America (820,000 b/d) and Africa (390,000 b/d)._
> 
> *Oil production | Oil | Statistical Review of World Energy | Energy economics | BP*
> 
> 
> Folks, I am not a dooms day person that has lost all hope and just want you to fear the future too. I am an optimist just like others here but I am not relying on God to save us. If He wanted to save us He would not have allowed wars or the invention of the gun or hydrogen bomb. Instead He gave us the right to choose our own future and I am confident mankind will make the right choices when the time comes.
> 
> The world is, as I see it, unfolding as it should
> 
> My advice is to sit back, do the right thing when called upon to do so, smile and enjoy life while you can.
> 
> All things come to an end



I see that you have no idea why Peak oil claims have been wrong for over 100 years. You ignored post 335 which is typical since you are wedded to a doomsday future. That is why Peak Oil followers are a truly stupid bunch since they have been 100% wrong for over 100 years now, always ignoring future reserves and site developments.

Try this for size: "If it ever becomes economically feasible to tap the unconventional oil of the Green River formation, Peak Oil will be put off “to infinity and beyond”…"

It WILL become economically feasible in the future.

Then we have COAL to make oil from. We can make oil ourselves too when it becomes economically feasible.

If people like YOU stop fighting Nuclear and Fusion power, a lot of Oil use would be reduced and Coal too.


----------



## Sunsettommy

"You ignored post 335 which is typical since you are wedded to a doomsday future."

I meant post 385 , NOT 335.

Sorry.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Sunsettommy said:


> I see that you have no idea why Peak oil claims have been wrong for over 100 years.



They only have to be right once. And this time around they are right for a change.



Sunsettommy said:


> You ignored post 335 which is typical since you are wedded to a doomsday future.



I am not wedded to anything. I just posted the known facts about the finite quality of oil that is out there and the rate we are burning it up. You are free to make your own conclusions from these facts. As of yet you have "not" proven me wrong.




Sunsettommy said:


> Then we have COAL to make oil from. We can make oil ourselves too when it becomes economically feasible.



My dear friend, coal is finite too.



Sunsettommy said:


> If people like YOU stop fighting Nuclear and Fusion power, a lot of Oil use would be reduced and Coal too.



I am not fighting nuclear or fusion power or geothermal. In the short term we could use the nuclear power that is now in our atomic war heads to power electric generation plands.

We need our president to announce a plain to transition us off of oil and to renewables in a timely manner that is not pannic driven.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Sunsettommy said:


> The boom in US oil production is due to oil produced from shale. The oil is conventional. The extraction process *(massive frac jobs on horizontal wells in shale formations) *is what’s unconventional.



In short, this is called scrapping the bottom of the barrel


----------



## KissMy

*Peak Tight Oil By 2022? EIA Thinks It's Possible*
The US unconventional oil will peak between 2022 & 2050. Global unconventional oil peak won't be far behind. Better be dead by then, or will die of scarcity & resource wars. US conventional oil production peaked in 1970 & Global conventional oil production peaked in 2004.


----------



## KissMy

Gasoline price was $0.25/gal before US 1970 peak. It was $1.20 after the US 1970 peak. Gasoline price remained around that $1.20/gal level until the Global peak in 2004 exploded when it exploded to about $4.00. Gasoline price will explode to about $12.00/gal when US peak unconventional oil hits & $40.00+/gal when Global peak unconventional oil hits.


----------



## Sunsettommy

watchingfromafar said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The boom in US oil production is due to oil produced from shale. The oil is conventional. The extraction process *(massive frac jobs on horizontal wells in shale formations) *is what’s unconventional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In short, this is called scrapping the bottom of the barrel
Click to expand...


Bwahahahahahahaha, your typical ignorance of "peal oil" thinking exposed once again. There is a LOT of untapped oil and gas yet to be drilled in large areas of the world as shown here:

*The End of Oil and Gas*

Selected excerpt:

*"Technology, Price and Oil Supply*

I’ve previously written that technically recoverable oil and gas reserves (or resources, if you prefer that term) are much larger than assumed by peak oil enthusiasts. But, even that conservative estimate of over eight trillion barrels of technically recoverable oil equivalent (at prices seen recently) is probably too low. Advancing deep-water drilling and production technology has opened huge new prospective areas, as seen in Figure 5.






Figure 5. The new areas opened with recent advances in technology are shown in purple."

Scraping the bottom of the barrel you say...….



A partial list of FAILED Peak oil predictions:

"1941: US Dept. of the Interior: “American oil supplies will last only another 13 years.”

1943, Oil and Gas Journal: “There is a growing opinion that the United States has reached its peak oil production, the Oil and Gas Journal pointed out in its current issue. Since 1938, discoveries of new oil have not equaled withdrawals, in any single year, although there is a very good chance that 1943 will see enough new Ellenburger oil in West Texas to provide an excess.”

1956, Hubbert: “M. King Hubbert of the Shell Development Co. predicted [one year ago] that peak oil production would be reached in the next 10 to 15 years and after that would gradually decline.”

1957: The residents of Tulsa, Oklahoma buried a car as part of a large time capsule. They buried containers of gasoline with it because they feared there would be no gasoline in 2007 when the capsule was to be opened. Link.

May, 1972, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Richard Wilson: “At any rate, U.S. oil supplies will last only 20 years. Foreign supplies will last 40 or 50 years but are increasingly dependent upon world politics.”

1977, US Department of Energy Organization Act: “As a nation, Americans have been reluctant to accept the prospect of physical shortages. We must recognize that world oil production will likely peak in the early 1990’s, and from that point on will be on a declining curve. By the early part of the 21st century, we must face the prospect of running out of oil and natural gas.” Link.

1978: Glenn Seaborg, chairman AEC: “We are living in the twilight of the petroleum age.”

1980, Dr. Hans Bethe: The world will reach peak oil production before the year 2000.

1996, Dr. Richard Smalley: “…oil production will likely peak by 2020 and start declining. “

2002, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden: “Global supplies of crude oil will peak as early as 2010 and then start to decline, ushering in an era of soaring energy prices and economic upheaval — or so said an international group of petroleum specialists meeting Friday.” Link.

2005, Chris Skrebowski, editor of the Energy Institute in London Petroleum Review: “We should be worried. Time is short, and we are not even at the point where we admit we have a problem … Governments are always excessively optimistic. The problem is that the peak, which I think is 2008, is tomorrow in planning terms.”

Stop fighting reality.


----------



## Sunsettommy

KissMy said:


> Gasoline price was $0.25/gal before US 1970 peak. It was $1.20 after the US 1970 peak. Gasoline price remained around that $1.20/gal level until the Global peak in 2004 exploded when it exploded to about $4.00. Gasoline price will explode to about $12.00/gal when US peak unconventional oil hits & $40.00+/gal when Global peak unconventional oil hits.



You forgot to factor in inflation. From InflationData.com

Inflation Adjusted Gasoline Prices

selected excerpt:

"If we look at the chart below we see that in inflation adjusted terms, the first low occurred in 1931 as nominal prices fell from 30 cents a gallon in 1920 to 17 cents in 1931. Thus in 11 years prices fell 43%. But we have to remember that 1931 was the beginning of the “Great Depression” and overall prices fell 24% during the same period. As we can see gasoline prices fell much more than prices in general in the early portion. It is interesting to note that in January 2016 prices for gasoline on an inflation adjusted basis are actually much lower than they were during the depression."

You have no idea what is going on as your ignorance is clear.


----------



## Sunsettommy

watchingfromafar said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The boom in US oil production is due to oil produced from shale. The oil is conventional. The extraction process *(massive frac jobs on horizontal wells in shale formations) *is what’s unconventional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In short, this is called scrapping the bottom of the barrel
Click to expand...


You keep ignoring post 385 where it shows that year 2004 peak is illusory because, this below is written by a 35 year Petroleum Geologist expert who is at the forefront of the industry.

"This doesn’t mean that the production rate literally peaked in 2004. It means that a hundred years from now, if you fit a logistic function to the data, the peak would be around 2004. However, proved reserves are a moving target because they only represent a fraction of the oil that is likely to be produced from existing fields. “Reserves” has a very specific legal definition. In the US, “reserves” generally means proved reserves (1P). In less regulated nations, “reserves” often includes probable (2P) and/or possible (3P) reserves. Most of the “off limits” areas would fall under “prospective resources”…"

_red bolding mine
_
Your ignorance continues because you are so taken in by peak oil ideology.


----------



## Sunsettommy

Here is a cogent comment from ANDY MAY that shows it is PRICE not supply that will determine when oil is no longer competitively viable even when there are still a lot left.

Andy May
Kristi Silber, I don’t think you read all of my post. I actually agree with what you have written about how “peak consumption” will occur and my agreement is in the post. Simply stated, peak consumption is reached when oil and gas are too expensive. I quote my post:

“In short, just because 95% of the oil is from historical “conventional” field types, does not mean that will continue. Other sources of oil will be found and developed if there is demand at the price required to make the fields profitable. The limit on the supply of oil has nothing to do with whether it is conventional or unconventional. It has everything to do with demand at the price required to make a profit. Once the price reaches a level where people find another energy source preferable, oil and gas will decline. As long as the price can go up, additional resources will always be found. We agree with Peter Jackson and Leta Smith:
“We do not dispute that supply will plateau and eventually fall; the question is when, how and at what price? As the plateau approaches, oil prices are likely to increase strongly, with some very severe spikes along the way.” (Jackson and Smith 2013)”

On BP. BP, like me, does not predict peak oil consumption at all. They only say we have 55 years of oil and gas left. We both believe that peak oil has nothing to do with supply, for all practical purposes supply is infinite. It has everything to do with cost and the cost of competitors. Right now, oil and gas have a huge cost advantage over all the competition, except for coal and nuclear. Both coal and nuclear have political problems, but if those go away, one of them could replace a lot (but not all) of the oil and gas consumption. Oil and gas are too useful, in too many areas. They are hard to replace completely."

_red bolding mine_


----------



## watchingfromafar

Sunsettommy said:


> Your ignorance continues because you are so taken in by peak oil ideology.



The last four (4) posts were yours. 
I do believe you are talking to yourself again. 
And I can see that it all amounts to a lot of wishful thinking on your part.

Don't worry, the world is unfolding as it should


----------



## Sunsettommy

watchingfromafar said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance continues because you are so taken in by peak oil ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The last four (4) posts were yours.
> I do believe you are talking to yourself again.
> And I can see that it all amounts to a lot of wishful thinking on your part.
> 
> Don't worry, the world is unfolding as it should
Click to expand...


Meanwhile you come back with nothing to counter as it should, but piling it on to show what a bunch of KNUCKLEHEADS peak oil morons are, yes you guys are indeed IGNORANT as hell!

David Middleton

Oil doesn’t have to be infinite, forever or renewable for there to be a helluva lot of it in the Earth’s crust.





How Much Oil Does the World Have Left?

2015 Global Crude Oil Production, Reserves, Resources
Cumulative production 1,200 billion bbl – The total volume consumed.
Proved reserves 1,680 – The volume of oil in the ground producible by existing wells.
Conventional Resources 1,435 – The volume of undiscovered technically recoverable oil in conventional reservoirs.
Unconventional Resources 2,815 – The volume of undiscovered technically recoverable oil in unconventional reservoirs.

Total oil consumed: 1,200 billion bbl (17%)
Total oil remaining to be consumed 5,930 billion bbl (83%)
Total recoverable oil: 7,130 billion bbl (100%)

Assuming the a the estimated resource potential doesn’t increase, the world has 211 years worth of crude oil remaining at current consumption rates.






_*red bolding mine
*_
*LINK*

Peak Oil fans wrong again!!!


----------



## Sunsettommy

I see that when I started posting the hard evidence straight from actual experts working in the field in the thread, it quickly died out. It is clear "peak oil" believers KNOW they have no case for their claims.

Several points of evidence completely ignored such as this one: 

"Assuming the a the estimated resource potential doesn’t increase, the world has 211 years worth of crude oil remaining at current consumption rates."

Give it up.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Sunsettommy said:


> "Assuming the a the estimated resource potential doesn’t increase, the world has 211 years worth of crude oil remaining at current consumption rates."



That statement is based on the assumption that future technologies will develop a way get the oil we cannot get; as of yet.

My father once asked me to spell out loud, "assume" one letter at a time and now I must ask you to do the same.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Total global oil reserves are estimated at 2,092 billion barrels, or 70 times the current production rate of about 30 billion barrels of oil a year. For comparison, cumulatively produced oil through 2015 amounted to 1,300 billion barrels.
*U.S. Holds Most Recoverable Oil Reserves*

BP's annual report on proved global oil reserves says that as of the end of 2013, Earth has nearly 1.688 trillion barrels of crude, which *will last 53.3 years at current rates of extraction*. This figure is 1.1 percent higher than that of the previous year.14 Jul 2014

The world has 53.3 years left to find an alternative to oil before current proved reserves run dry, according to BP. Of course, nations are finding new oil – meaning that number is rising – but new extraction methods are costly and can pose environmental threats.
*How long will world's oil reserves last? 53 years, says BP*

*How much oil is left in the world?*

*The world has 53.3 years of oil left* at the current rate of production, according to BP's annual statistical review of world energy. Just 53 years! From the report: Total world proved oil reserves reached 1687.9 billion barrels at the end of 2013, sufficient to meet 53.3 years of global production.Jul 9, 2014
https://jalopnik.com/bp-says-the-world-only-has-53-years-of-oil-left-should-1602354842

New estimates of worldwide crude oil reserves total 1.651 trillion bbl
(1,651,000,000,000)
*Login*

In 2010, global crude oil demand was 86.4 million barrels per day.
86,400,000,000x365=315360000000000000
*Daily global crude oil demand 2006-2018 | Statistic*


1,651,000,000,000/315360000000000000=19 years left

My math might be off but it looks like, at current rate of consumption all the known oil reserves will be used up in 19 years.

If the numbers are correct, we need to act now before it is too late !!


----------



## RGR

> New estimates of worldwide crude oil reserves total 1.651 trillion bbl
> (1,651,000,000,000)
> *Login*
> 
> In 2010, global crude oil demand was 86.4 million barrels per day.
> 86,400,000,000x365=315360000000000000
> *Daily global crude oil demand 2006-2018 | Statistic*
> 
> 
> 1,651,000,000,000/315360000000000000=19 years left
> 
> My math might be off but it looks like, at current rate of consumption all the known oil reserves will be used up in 19 years.
> 
> If the numbers are correct, we need to act now before it is too late !!



86.4 million per day is 31.536 billion per year. 1651 billions / 31.536 billions is 52.3 years. Maybe you missed some 0's somewhere?


----------



## westwall

watchingfromafar said:


> Total global oil reserves are estimated at 2,092 billion barrels, or 70 times the current production rate of about 30 billion barrels of oil a year. For comparison, cumulatively produced oil through 2015 amounted to 1,300 billion barrels.
> *U.S. Holds Most Recoverable Oil Reserves*
> 
> BP's annual report on proved global oil reserves says that as of the end of 2013, Earth has nearly 1.688 trillion barrels of crude, which *will last 53.3 years at current rates of extraction*. This figure is 1.1 percent higher than that of the previous year.14 Jul 2014
> 
> The world has 53.3 years left to find an alternative to oil before current proved reserves run dry, according to BP. Of course, nations are finding new oil – meaning that number is rising – but new extraction methods are costly and can pose environmental threats.
> *How long will world's oil reserves last? 53 years, says BP*
> 
> *How much oil is left in the world?*
> 
> *The world has 53.3 years of oil left* at the current rate of production, according to BP's annual statistical review of world energy. Just 53 years! From the report: Total world proved oil reserves reached 1687.9 billion barrels at the end of 2013, sufficient to meet 53.3 years of global production.Jul 9, 2014
> https://jalopnik.com/bp-says-the-world-only-has-53-years-of-oil-left-should-1602354842
> 
> New estimates of worldwide crude oil reserves total 1.651 trillion bbl
> (1,651,000,000,000)
> *Login*
> 
> In 2010, global crude oil demand was 86.4 million barrels per day.
> 86,400,000,000x365=315360000000000000
> *Daily global crude oil demand 2006-2018 | Statistic*
> 
> 
> 1,651,000,000,000/315360000000000000=19 years left
> 
> My math might be off but it looks like, at current rate of consumption all the known oil reserves will be used up in 19 years.
> 
> If the numbers are correct, we need to act now before it is too late !!










Hmmm, this makes what the seventh time we are "DOOMED, DOOMED I TELL YA!" to run out of oil in mere years.  Here's a hint, when the need arises, a solution will be found.  It always has.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

westwall said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Total global oil reserves are estimated at 2,092 billion barrels, or 70 times the current production rate of about 30 billion barrels of oil a year. For comparison, cumulatively produced oil through 2015 amounted to 1,300 billion barrels.
> *U.S. Holds Most Recoverable Oil Reserves*
> 
> BP's annual report on proved global oil reserves says that as of the end of 2013, Earth has nearly 1.688 trillion barrels of crude, which *will last 53.3 years at current rates of extraction*. This figure is 1.1 percent higher than that of the previous year.14 Jul 2014
> 
> The world has 53.3 years left to find an alternative to oil before current proved reserves run dry, according to BP. Of course, nations are finding new oil – meaning that number is rising – but new extraction methods are costly and can pose environmental threats.
> *How long will world's oil reserves last? 53 years, says BP*
> 
> *How much oil is left in the world?*
> 
> *The world has 53.3 years of oil left* at the current rate of production, according to BP's annual statistical review of world energy. Just 53 years! From the report: Total world proved oil reserves reached 1687.9 billion barrels at the end of 2013, sufficient to meet 53.3 years of global production.Jul 9, 2014
> https://jalopnik.com/bp-says-the-world-only-has-53-years-of-oil-left-should-1602354842
> 
> New estimates of worldwide crude oil reserves total 1.651 trillion bbl
> (1,651,000,000,000)
> *Login*
> 
> In 2010, global crude oil demand was 86.4 million barrels per day.
> 86,400,000,000x365=315360000000000000
> *Daily global crude oil demand 2006-2018 | Statistic*
> 
> 
> 1,651,000,000,000/315360000000000000=19 years left
> 
> My math might be off but it looks like, at current rate of consumption all the known oil reserves will be used up in 19 years.
> 
> If the numbers are correct, we need to act now before it is too late !!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, this makes what the seventh time we are "DOOMED, DOOMED I TELL YA!" to run out of oil in mere years.  Here's a hint, when the need arises, a solution will be found.  It always has.
Click to expand...


Whale oil!!!


----------



## KissMy

Most of the oil we produce goes right back into producing oil. The EROEI for Oil keeps falling! The Permian will be utilizing over 2 million truckloads to deliver fracking sand, or nearly  50% of Walmart’s supply chain: Plus over 1.5 gallons of fresh water to pump out each gallon of oil.


----------



## bripat9643

KissMy said:


> Most of the oil we produce goes right back into producing oil. The EROEI for Oil keeps falling! The Permian will be utilizing over 2 million truckloads to deliver fracking sand, or nearly  50% of Walmart’s supply chain: Plus over 1.5 gallons of fresh water to pump out each gallon of oil.


Utter horseshit.  Oil has the lowest EROEI of any energy source.


----------



## KissMy

bripat9643 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the oil we produce goes right back into producing oil. The EROEI for Oil keeps falling! The Permian will be utilizing over 2 million truckloads to deliver fracking sand, or nearly  50% of Walmart’s supply chain: Plus over 1.5 gallons of fresh water to pump out each gallon of oil.
> 
> 
> 
> Utter horseshit.  Oil has the lowest EROEI of any energy source.
Click to expand...

You are an IDIOT!!! Low EROEI is very, very BAD!!!

2 million loads of sand *every year* for 1 basin!!! A bunch more for water, drilling equipment, pumps, casings, cement, etc.


----------



## bripat9643

KissMy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the oil we produce goes right back into producing oil. The EROEI for Oil keeps falling! The Permian will be utilizing over 2 million truckloads to deliver fracking sand, or nearly  50% of Walmart’s supply chain: Plus over 1.5 gallons of fresh water to pump out each gallon of oil.
> 
> 
> 
> Utter horseshit.  Oil has the lowest EROEI of any energy source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are an IDIOT!!! Low EROEI is very, very BAD!!!
Click to expand...

Whatever.  producing oil consumes the lowest percentage of the end product.  Ethanol is probably the worst of the fuels that burn.  It may even be negative.


----------



## Moonglow

mdn2000 said:


> We are finding new oil reserves every year, maybe not the USA but other countries. Brazil is extremely active and in the last couple years they have become Oil independent. Soon if not today they hope to be an exporter of petroleum.
> 
> Seems like professor's and scientist's theories are proven wrong, what is theory of Peak Oil in light of recent petroleum discoveries.
> 
> OilVoice | Petrobras Announces Discovery of Light Oil to the South of Santos Basin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. - Petrobras announces that it has confirmed the presence of light oil in well 1-BRSA-870-SPS (1-SPS-76), located to the south of Santos Basin, in sandstones reservoirs, similar to those found in the accumulations of Tiro and Sidon. The discovery is located around 15 km of the Tiro and Sidon area.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This discovery confirms the success of the exploratory strategy in the search for the formation of a new production hub in the southeastern part of Santos Basin which may be integrated by a series of already discovered fields, such as Caravela, Cavalo Marinho, Coral and Tiro-Sidon, as well as others to be discovered or in evaluation process, such as that of well 1-BRSA-870-SPS in the Marujá prospect.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Not hard to prove a theory from the 1970's wrong  with better equipment to locate formations..


----------



## Moonglow

bripat9643 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the oil we produce goes right back into producing oil. The EROEI for Oil keeps falling! The Permian will be utilizing over 2 million truckloads to deliver fracking sand, or nearly  50% of Walmart’s supply chain: Plus over 1.5 gallons of fresh water to pump out each gallon of oil.
> 
> 
> 
> Utter horseshit.  Oil has the lowest EROEI of any energy source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are an IDIOT!!! Low EROEI is very, very BAD!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever.  producing oil consumes the lowest percentage of the end product.  Ethanol is probably the worst of the fuels that burn.  It may even be negative.
Click to expand...

Alcohol burning engines are more fuel efficient than gasoline and diesel burning engines.


----------



## Moonglow

Mr. H. said:


> Jiggs Casey lecture in 3... 2... 1....


Hello Mr.H. what's up?


----------



## bripat9643

Moonglow said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the oil we produce goes right back into producing oil. The EROEI for Oil keeps falling! The Permian will be utilizing over 2 million truckloads to deliver fracking sand, or nearly  50% of Walmart’s supply chain: Plus over 1.5 gallons of fresh water to pump out each gallon of oil.
> 
> 
> 
> Utter horseshit.  Oil has the lowest EROEI of any energy source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are an IDIOT!!! Low EROEI is very, very BAD!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever.  producing oil consumes the lowest percentage of the end product.  Ethanol is probably the worst of the fuels that burn.  It may even be negative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Alcohol burning engines are more fuel efficient than gasoline and diesel burning engines.
Click to expand...

Producing methanol consumes almost as much energy as is contained in the fuel.  I also doubt whether Alcohol engines are as efficient as diesel engines.


----------



## westwall

Moonglow said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the oil we produce goes right back into producing oil. The EROEI for Oil keeps falling! The Permian will be utilizing over 2 million truckloads to deliver fracking sand, or nearly  50% of Walmart’s supply chain: Plus over 1.5 gallons of fresh water to pump out each gallon of oil.
> 
> 
> 
> Utter horseshit.  Oil has the lowest EROEI of any energy source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are an IDIOT!!! Low EROEI is very, very BAD!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever.  producing oil consumes the lowest percentage of the end product.  Ethanol is probably the worst of the fuels that burn.  It may even be negative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Alcohol burning engines are more fuel efficient than gasoline and diesel burning engines.
Click to expand...






The problem being the production of the alcohol.  Very oil intensive and in the long run you expend more oil then you save.  As a cost comparison regular Jet fuel is 5.21 a gallon as of Monday when i bought some.  Bio Jet fuel on the other hand is around three bucks more a gallon.  And that is a blend, if you use pure bio jetfuel it runs 26 bucks a gallon.  Feel free to show me where the savings are.


----------



## westwall

Moonglow said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jiggs Casey lecture in 3... 2... 1....
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Mr.H. what's up?
Click to expand...






Mr. H has sadly not posted in a very long while.  I fear that he has left us.


----------



## Moonglow

westwall said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jiggs Casey lecture in 3... 2... 1....
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Mr.H. what's up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H has sadly not posted in a very long while.  I fear that he has left us.
Click to expand...

I know..


----------



## Moonglow

westwall said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the oil we produce goes right back into producing oil. The EROEI for Oil keeps falling! The Permian will be utilizing over 2 million truckloads to deliver fracking sand, or nearly  50% of Walmart’s supply chain: Plus over 1.5 gallons of fresh water to pump out each gallon of oil.
> 
> 
> 
> Utter horseshit.  Oil has the lowest EROEI of any energy source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are an IDIOT!!! Low EROEI is very, very BAD!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever.  producing oil consumes the lowest percentage of the end product.  Ethanol is probably the worst of the fuels that burn.  It may even be negative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Alcohol burning engines are more fuel efficient than gasoline and diesel burning engines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem being the production of the alcohol.  Very oil intensive and in the long run you expend more oil then you save.  As a cost comparison regular Jet fuel is 5.21 a gallon as of Monday when i bought some.  Bio Jet fuel on the other hand is around three bucks more a gallon.  And that is a blend, if you use pure bio jetfuel it runs 26 bucks a gallon.  Feel free to show me where the savings are.
Click to expand...

Alcohol is a superior fuel for spark ignition internal combustion but only if the engine is optimized to run on pure alcohol. I probably should have clarified what type of engines.


----------



## westwall

Moonglow said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Utter horseshit.  Oil has the lowest EROEI of any energy source.
> 
> 
> 
> You are an IDIOT!!! Low EROEI is very, very BAD!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever.  producing oil consumes the lowest percentage of the end product.  Ethanol is probably the worst of the fuels that burn.  It may even be negative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Alcohol burning engines are more fuel efficient than gasoline and diesel burning engines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem being the production of the alcohol.  Very oil intensive and in the long run you expend more oil then you save.  As a cost comparison regular Jet fuel is 5.21 a gallon as of Monday when i bought some.  Bio Jet fuel on the other hand is around three bucks more a gallon.  And that is a blend, if you use pure bio jetfuel it runs 26 bucks a gallon.  Feel free to show me where the savings are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Alcohol is a superior fuel for spark ignition internal combustion but only if the engine is optimized to run on pure alcohol. I probably should have clarified what type of engines.
Click to expand...






I know what you were talking about, but the fact remains that producing alcohol requires the expenditure of shitloads of oil.  Which means the net result is less efficiency.


----------



## Wyatt earp

westwall said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are an IDIOT!!! Low EROEI is very, very BAD!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever.  producing oil consumes the lowest percentage of the end product.  Ethanol is probably the worst of the fuels that burn.  It may even be negative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Alcohol burning engines are more fuel efficient than gasoline and diesel burning engines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem being the production of the alcohol.  Very oil intensive and in the long run you expend more oil then you save.  As a cost comparison regular Jet fuel is 5.21 a gallon as of Monday when i bought some.  Bio Jet fuel on the other hand is around three bucks more a gallon.  And that is a blend, if you use pure bio jetfuel it runs 26 bucks a gallon.  Feel free to show me where the savings are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Alcohol is a superior fuel for spark ignition internal combustion but only if the engine is optimized to run on pure alcohol. I probably should have clarified what type of engines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know what you were talking about, but the fact remains that producing alcohol requires the expenditure of shitloads of oil.  Which means the net result is less efficiency.
Click to expand...



It burns up pistons..I know my dad and I used to race these boats..





.


----------



## Rigby5

westwall said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are an IDIOT!!! Low EROEI is very, very BAD!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever.  producing oil consumes the lowest percentage of the end product.  Ethanol is probably the worst of the fuels that burn.  It may even be negative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Alcohol burning engines are more fuel efficient than gasoline and diesel burning engines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem being the production of the alcohol.  Very oil intensive and in the long run you expend more oil then you save.  As a cost comparison regular Jet fuel is 5.21 a gallon as of Monday when i bought some.  Bio Jet fuel on the other hand is around three bucks more a gallon.  And that is a blend, if you use pure bio jetfuel it runs 26 bucks a gallon.  Feel free to show me where the savings are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Alcohol is a superior fuel for spark ignition internal combustion but only if the engine is optimized to run on pure alcohol. I probably should have clarified what type of engines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know what you were talking about, but the fact remains that producing alcohol requires the expenditure of shitloads of oil.  Which means the net result is less efficiency.
Click to expand...



It is only when one makes alcohol from corn that it has such high energy and water consumption problems.  If you use sugar cane, sugar beets, or algae, then it becomes far more efficient.
But ultimately alcohol does have lower energy content than bio diesel, so I like bio diesel better.
All you have to do is cold press seeds or pods like palm oil.
You can even run a diesel on chicken fat.


----------



## Moonglow

westwall said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are an IDIOT!!! Low EROEI is very, very BAD!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever.  producing oil consumes the lowest percentage of the end product.  Ethanol is probably the worst of the fuels that burn.  It may even be negative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Alcohol burning engines are more fuel efficient than gasoline and diesel burning engines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem being the production of the alcohol.  Very oil intensive and in the long run you expend more oil then you save.  As a cost comparison regular Jet fuel is 5.21 a gallon as of Monday when i bought some.  Bio Jet fuel on the other hand is around three bucks more a gallon.  And that is a blend, if you use pure bio jetfuel it runs 26 bucks a gallon.  Feel free to show me where the savings are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Alcohol is a superior fuel for spark ignition internal combustion but only if the engine is optimized to run on pure alcohol. I probably should have clarified what type of engines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know what you were talking about, but the fact remains that producing alcohol requires the expenditure of shitloads of oil.  Which means the net result is less efficiency.
Click to expand...

How much energy is used to create hemp oil?


----------



## Rigby5

bear513 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever.  producing oil consumes the lowest percentage of the end product.  Ethanol is probably the worst of the fuels that burn.  It may even be negative.
> 
> 
> 
> Alcohol burning engines are more fuel efficient than gasoline and diesel burning engines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem being the production of the alcohol.  Very oil intensive and in the long run you expend more oil then you save.  As a cost comparison regular Jet fuel is 5.21 a gallon as of Monday when i bought some.  Bio Jet fuel on the other hand is around three bucks more a gallon.  And that is a blend, if you use pure bio jetfuel it runs 26 bucks a gallon.  Feel free to show me where the savings are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Alcohol is a superior fuel for spark ignition internal combustion but only if the engine is optimized to run on pure alcohol. I probably should have clarified what type of engines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know what you were talking about, but the fact remains that producing alcohol requires the expenditure of shitloads of oil.  Which means the net result is less efficiency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It burns up pistons..I know my dad and I used to race these boats..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


From my experience, methanol does not burn up pistons because that would mean deterioration from the middle.  Instead, what I found was that there was more side wear from methanol fuel, especially near the top of the piston.  To me that would indicate that methanol was breaking down lubricants more quickly?


----------



## bripat9643

Rigby5 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alcohol burning engines are more fuel efficient than gasoline and diesel burning engines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem being the production of the alcohol.  Very oil intensive and in the long run you expend more oil then you save.  As a cost comparison regular Jet fuel is 5.21 a gallon as of Monday when i bought some.  Bio Jet fuel on the other hand is around three bucks more a gallon.  And that is a blend, if you use pure bio jetfuel it runs 26 bucks a gallon.  Feel free to show me where the savings are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Alcohol is a superior fuel for spark ignition internal combustion but only if the engine is optimized to run on pure alcohol. I probably should have clarified what type of engines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know what you were talking about, but the fact remains that producing alcohol requires the expenditure of shitloads of oil.  Which means the net result is less efficiency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It burns up pistons..I know my dad and I used to race these boats..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From my experience, methanol does not burn up pistons because that would mean deterioration from the middle.  Instead, what I found was that there was more side wear from methanol fuel, especially near the top of the piston.  To me that would indicate that methanol was breaking down lubricants more quickly?
Click to expand...



Methanol or Ethanol?  One thing Ethanol does is eat away all the plastic components of the engine.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Rigby5 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alcohol burning engines are more fuel efficient than gasoline and diesel burning engines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem being the production of the alcohol.  Very oil intensive and in the long run you expend more oil then you save.  As a cost comparison regular Jet fuel is 5.21 a gallon as of Monday when i bought some.  Bio Jet fuel on the other hand is around three bucks more a gallon.  And that is a blend, if you use pure bio jetfuel it runs 26 bucks a gallon.  Feel free to show me where the savings are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Alcohol is a superior fuel for spark ignition internal combustion but only if the engine is optimized to run on pure alcohol. I probably should have clarified what type of engines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know what you were talking about, but the fact remains that producing alcohol requires the expenditure of shitloads of oil.  Which means the net result is less efficiency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It burns up pistons..I know my dad and I used to race these boats..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From my experience, methanol does not burn up pistons because that would mean deterioration from the middle.  Instead, what I found was that there was more side wear from methanol fuel, especially near the top of the piston.  To me that would indicate that methanol was breaking down lubricants more quickly?
Click to expand...



Try adding nitro to methanol and see what happens..


I found out mostly to lean, jets wrong in the carb.


This is an interesting discussion ( but I am kind of breaking the rules here)



Burned piston in Alky engine - Speed Talk



It's not a problem with the engine, it's a problem with the fuel system that needs to be found or it'll do it again. 

I had a customer burn about 6 pistons in a methanol engine after about 4 laps of the 1st race after I rebuilt the engine. We went through the fuel system and found SAND in the fuel pump! It had coarse brown sand in there and it was holding some but not all of the valves in the pump open. This caused the fuel volume to just not be adequate. Of course it didn't just quit pumping all together and quit running. No, it instead simply leaned out and damaged the engine!


----------



## Rigby5

Moonglow said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever.  producing oil consumes the lowest percentage of the end product.  Ethanol is probably the worst of the fuels that burn.  It may even be negative.
> 
> 
> 
> Alcohol burning engines are more fuel efficient than gasoline and diesel burning engines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem being the production of the alcohol.  Very oil intensive and in the long run you expend more oil then you save.  As a cost comparison regular Jet fuel is 5.21 a gallon as of Monday when i bought some.  Bio Jet fuel on the other hand is around three bucks more a gallon.  And that is a blend, if you use pure bio jetfuel it runs 26 bucks a gallon.  Feel free to show me where the savings are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Alcohol is a superior fuel for spark ignition internal combustion but only if the engine is optimized to run on pure alcohol. I probably should have clarified what type of engines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know what you were talking about, but the fact remains that producing alcohol requires the expenditure of shitloads of oil.  Which means the net result is less efficiency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much energy is used to create hemp oil?
Click to expand...


Not much I think?  I think it is just cold pressed from the seeds?


----------



## Moonglow

Rigby5 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alcohol burning engines are more fuel efficient than gasoline and diesel burning engines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem being the production of the alcohol.  Very oil intensive and in the long run you expend more oil then you save.  As a cost comparison regular Jet fuel is 5.21 a gallon as of Monday when i bought some.  Bio Jet fuel on the other hand is around three bucks more a gallon.  And that is a blend, if you use pure bio jetfuel it runs 26 bucks a gallon.  Feel free to show me where the savings are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Alcohol is a superior fuel for spark ignition internal combustion but only if the engine is optimized to run on pure alcohol. I probably should have clarified what type of engines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know what you were talking about, but the fact remains that producing alcohol requires the expenditure of shitloads of oil.  Which means the net result is less efficiency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much energy is used to create hemp oil?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not much I think?  I think it is just cold pressed from the seeds?
Click to expand...

Since it is becoming legal to grow in the US I was thinking about at least 5 acres worth for a little experimenting on uses and processing.


----------



## Rigby5

Moonglow said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem being the production of the alcohol.  Very oil intensive and in the long run you expend more oil then you save.  As a cost comparison regular Jet fuel is 5.21 a gallon as of Monday when i bought some.  Bio Jet fuel on the other hand is around three bucks more a gallon.  And that is a blend, if you use pure bio jetfuel it runs 26 bucks a gallon.  Feel free to show me where the savings are.
> 
> 
> 
> Alcohol is a superior fuel for spark ignition internal combustion but only if the engine is optimized to run on pure alcohol. I probably should have clarified what type of engines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know what you were talking about, but the fact remains that producing alcohol requires the expenditure of shitloads of oil.  Which means the net result is less efficiency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much energy is used to create hemp oil?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not much I think?  I think it is just cold pressed from the seeds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since it is becoming legal to grow in the US I was thinking about at least 5 acres worth for a little experimenting on uses and processing.
Click to expand...


But there is a lot to learn since there is cold pressed hemp seed oil which contains no THC, cannabis oil that is an extraction turned into an infusion, with lots of THC, and CBD oil which is extracted from hemp flowers, has no THC, and is turned into an infusion.

Hemp Oil vs CBD Oil: The Need For Clarity


----------



## westwall

Rigby5 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever.  producing oil consumes the lowest percentage of the end product.  Ethanol is probably the worst of the fuels that burn.  It may even be negative.
> 
> 
> 
> Alcohol burning engines are more fuel efficient than gasoline and diesel burning engines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem being the production of the alcohol.  Very oil intensive and in the long run you expend more oil then you save.  As a cost comparison regular Jet fuel is 5.21 a gallon as of Monday when i bought some.  Bio Jet fuel on the other hand is around three bucks more a gallon.  And that is a blend, if you use pure bio jetfuel it runs 26 bucks a gallon.  Feel free to show me where the savings are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Alcohol is a superior fuel for spark ignition internal combustion but only if the engine is optimized to run on pure alcohol. I probably should have clarified what type of engines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know what you were talking about, but the fact remains that producing alcohol requires the expenditure of shitloads of oil.  Which means the net result is less efficiency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is only when one makes alcohol from corn that it has such high energy and water consumption problems.  If you use sugar cane, sugar beets, or algae, then it becomes far more efficient.
> But ultimately alcohol does have lower energy content than bio diesel, so I like bio diesel better.
> All you have to do is cold press seeds or pods like palm oil.
> You can even run a diesel on chicken fat.
Click to expand...







And it is still less efficient than just running regular diesel.  That's the point.  When you have to use fuel to make fuel, you are ALWAYS going to be chasing your tail.


----------



## westwall

Moonglow said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever.  producing oil consumes the lowest percentage of the end product.  Ethanol is probably the worst of the fuels that burn.  It may even be negative.
> 
> 
> 
> Alcohol burning engines are more fuel efficient than gasoline and diesel burning engines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem being the production of the alcohol.  Very oil intensive and in the long run you expend more oil then you save.  As a cost comparison regular Jet fuel is 5.21 a gallon as of Monday when i bought some.  Bio Jet fuel on the other hand is around three bucks more a gallon.  And that is a blend, if you use pure bio jetfuel it runs 26 bucks a gallon.  Feel free to show me where the savings are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Alcohol is a superior fuel for spark ignition internal combustion but only if the engine is optimized to run on pure alcohol. I probably should have clarified what type of engines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know what you were talking about, but the fact remains that producing alcohol requires the expenditure of shitloads of oil.  Which means the net result is less efficiency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much energy is used to create hemp oil?
Click to expand...






Hemp produces 511 gallons of oil per acre.  You do the calculations.


----------



## westwall

Rigby5 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alcohol burning engines are more fuel efficient than gasoline and diesel burning engines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem being the production of the alcohol.  Very oil intensive and in the long run you expend more oil then you save.  As a cost comparison regular Jet fuel is 5.21 a gallon as of Monday when i bought some.  Bio Jet fuel on the other hand is around three bucks more a gallon.  And that is a blend, if you use pure bio jetfuel it runs 26 bucks a gallon.  Feel free to show me where the savings are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Alcohol is a superior fuel for spark ignition internal combustion but only if the engine is optimized to run on pure alcohol. I probably should have clarified what type of engines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know what you were talking about, but the fact remains that producing alcohol requires the expenditure of shitloads of oil.  Which means the net result is less efficiency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It burns up pistons..I know my dad and I used to race these boats..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From my experience, methanol does not burn up pistons because that would mean deterioration from the middle.  Instead, what I found was that there was more side wear from methanol fuel, especially near the top of the piston.  To me that would indicate that methanol was breaking down lubricants more quickly?
Click to expand...







That is correct.


----------



## KissMy

bripat9643 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the oil we produce goes right back into producing oil. The EROEI for Oil keeps falling! The Permian will be utilizing over 2 million truckloads to deliver fracking sand, or nearly  50% of Walmart’s supply chain: Plus over 1.5 gallons of fresh water to pump out each gallon of oil.
> 
> 
> 
> Utter horseshit.  Oil has the lowest EROEI of any energy source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are an IDIOT!!! Low EROEI is very, very BAD!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever.  producing oil consumes the lowest percentage of the end product.
Click to expand...

More Lies! - US Oil Imports are RISING because US burns more oil while extracting more oil! We are now MORE dependent on foreign oil!


----------



## watchingfromafar

KissMy said:


> More Lies! - US Oil Imports are RISING because US burns more oil while extracting more oil! We are now MORE dependent on foreign oil!



And at the same time oil is finite, meaning the total amount is fixed while we continue to burn more and more. 

When you are driving your car and your gas gauge continues to drop there is a point where you either stop at a gas station and get more or you run out leaving you stranded at the road side.

People say what's the hurry, we have plenty of oil and that's true; for YOU.,.,.,.,.,but not your children. If you have no children and could care less for the next generation; then you be you.

The rest of us do care and that is why we spend some of our time trying to wake up the rest of us BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE !!!


----------



## bripat9643

watchingfromafar said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> More Lies! - US Oil Imports are RISING because US burns more oil while extracting more oil! We are now MORE dependent on foreign oil!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And at the same time oil is finite, meaning the total amount is fixed while we continue to burn more and more.
> 
> When you are driving your car and your gas gauge continues to drop there is a point where you either stop at a gas station and get more or you run out leaving you stranded at the road side.
> 
> People say what's the hurry, we have plenty of oil and that's true; for YOU.,.,.,.,.,but not your children. If you have no children and could care less for the next generation; then you be you.
> 
> The rest of us do care and that is why we spend some of our time trying to wake up the rest of us BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE !!!
Click to expand...

Actually, it's true for our great great grand children, and fusion power will be perfected long before that.


----------



## watchingfromafar

bripat9643 said:


> Actually, it's true for our great great grand children, and fusion power will be perfected long before that.



No my friend, in your grandchildren's time. 
-


----------



## bripat9643

watchingfromafar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's true for our great great grand children, and fusion power will be perfected long before that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No my friend, in your grandchildren's time.
> -
Click to expand...

Even if true, fusion power will be perfected long before that.  It may be perfected in the next 10 years.  They are making great strides.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

bripat9643 said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's true for our great great grand children, and fusion power will be perfected long before that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No my friend, in your grandchildren's time.
> -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if true, fusion power will be perfected long before that.  It may be perfected in the next 10 years.  They are making great strides.
Click to expand...


More likely the next 100 years.


----------



## bripat9643

Toddsterpatriot said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's true for our great great grand children, and fusion power will be perfected long before that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No my friend, in your grandchildren's time.
> -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if true, fusion power will be perfected long before that.  It may be perfected in the next 10 years.  They are making great strides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More likely the next 100 years.
Click to expand...

It isn't going to take that long.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

bripat9643 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's true for our great great grand children, and fusion power will be perfected long before that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No my friend, in your grandchildren's time.
> -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if true, fusion power will be perfected long before that.  It may be perfected in the next 10 years.  They are making great strides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More likely the next 100 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It isn't going to take that long.
Click to expand...


Sure. What's the closest they've come to break-even? 
How many billions did they spend?


----------



## bripat9643

Toddsterpatriot said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's true for our great great grand children, and fusion power will be perfected long before that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No my friend, in your grandchildren's time.
> -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if true, fusion power will be perfected long before that.  It may be perfected in the next 10 years.  They are making great strides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More likely the next 100 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It isn't going to take that long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. What's the closest they've come to break-even?
> How many billions did they spend?
Click to expand...

They have come pretty close, actually.  The ITER installation is supposed to produce above break-even.


----------



## watchingfromafar

bripat9643 said:


> Even if true, fusion power will be perfected long before that. It may be perfected in the next 10 years. They are making great strides.



I hope you are right. 
We have nuclear powered submarines today. This same power could provide the electricity for our cities and that electric power could charge electric cars. 
I believe this is coming.
It will either be a result of--
 an economic meltdown and restart 
or
planned smooth transition
in my opinion -


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

bripat9643 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> No my friend, in your grandchildren's time.
> -
> 
> 
> 
> Even if true, fusion power will be perfected long before that.  It may be perfected in the next 10 years.  They are making great strides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More likely the next 100 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It isn't going to take that long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. What's the closest they've come to break-even?
> How many billions did they spend?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have come pretty close, actually.  The ITER installation is supposed to produce above break-even.
Click to expand...


*They have come pretty close, actually.*

How close, actually? For how many billions?


----------



## Rigby5

bripat9643 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> No my friend, in your grandchildren's time.
> -
> 
> 
> 
> Even if true, fusion power will be perfected long before that.  It may be perfected in the next 10 years.  They are making great strides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More likely the next 100 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It isn't going to take that long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. What's the closest they've come to break-even?
> How many billions did they spend?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have come pretty close, actually.  The ITER installation is supposed to produce above break-even.
Click to expand...


Breaking even with fusion does still not mean it is practical.
It is still expensive, difficult, and still has radiation hazards.
They have been promising us we are almost there, every year, for over 50 years now.
And yet it seems as distant as ever.
One possibility is that they government does not want cheap and easy fusion because once revealed, could mean everyone could produce cheap fusion weapons?


----------



## Rigby5

watchingfromafar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if true, fusion power will be perfected long before that. It may be perfected in the next 10 years. They are making great strides.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you are right.
> We have nuclear powered submarines today. This same power could provide the electricity for our cities and that electric power could charge electric cars.
> I believe this is coming.
> It will either be a result of--
> an economic meltdown and restart
> or
> planned smooth transition
> in my opinion -
Click to expand...


Chernobyl and Fukishima put a damper on that.
Even if it could be done safely, people don't trust them any more.


----------



## watchingfromafar

There are a lot of folks who believe "the end of oil is near" is an old stale myth but at least  remember that there will be a point when this will be true; this you cannot deny.  
Even the illiterate has a right to be ignorant. I know the data below will be difficult for you to understand so please ask a friend to explain it to you.

It is expected that by the year 2035, demand will reach 110.3 million barrels a day. Companies eventually will start to transition to alternative forms of energy and will be interesting to see what the future holds for renewable energy.
Which countries have the biggest oil reserves?

A 2013 study concluded that peak oil "appears probable before 2030", and that there was a "significant risk" that it would occur before 2020
Peak oil - Wikipedia

When the price of gasoline rises, people naturally buy less of it; the amount of this reduction being determined by the amount of the price increase and the consumer's elasticity of demand for gasoline. This does not necessarily mean that people will drive less (though it is likely), it may mean that consumers trade in their SUVs for smaller cars, hybrid vehicles, electric cars or cars that run on alternative fuels.
*Will the World Ever Run Out of Oil?*

Countries With The Largest Proven Oil Reserves
Rank   Country           Reserves (millions of barrels), 2017 US EIA
1          Venezuela       300,878
2          Saudi Arabia   266,455
3          Canada           169,709
4          Iran      158,400
5          Iraq      142,503
6          Kuwait 101,500
7          United Arab Emirates 97,800
8          Russia 80,000
9          Libya   48,363
10        United States  39,230
11        Nigeria 37,062
12        Kazakhstan     30,000
13        China   25,620
14        Qatar   25,244
15        Brazil   12,999
16        Algeria 12,200
17        Angola 8,273
18        Ecuador          8,273
19        Mexico 7,640
20        Azerbaijan       7,000
---------------------------
TOTAL 1,609,149 million proven barrels
The World’s Largest Oil Reserves By Country

It is expected that by the year 2035, demand will reach 110.3 million barrels a day or 40,259 a year
1609149/40259 = 40+/- years left

The Truth Will Set You Free

.,,.,.,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,……………………………

*It is expected that by the year 2035, demand will reach 110.3 million barrels a day.* Companies eventually will start to transition to alternative forms of energy and will be interesting to see what the future holds for renewable energy.
Which countries have the biggest oil reserves?

*A 2013 study concluded that peak oil "appears probable before 2030*", and that there was a "significant risk" that it would occur before 2020
Peak oil - Wikipedia

_When the price of gasoline rises, people naturally buy less of it; the amount of this reduction being determined by the amount of the price increase and the consumer's elasticity of demand for gasoline. This does not necessarily mean that people will drive less (though it is likely), it may mean that consumers trade in their SUVs for smaller cars, hybrid vehicles, electric cars or cars that run on alternative fuels._
*Will the World Ever Run Out of Oil?*


----------



## westwall

watchingfromafar said:


> There are a lot of folks who believe "the end of oil is near" is an old stale myth but at least  remember that there will be a point when this will be true; this you cannot deny.
> Even the illiterate has a right to be ignorant. I know the data below will be difficult for you to understand so please ask a friend to explain it to you.
> 
> It is expected that by the year 2035, demand will reach 110.3 million barrels a day. Companies eventually will start to transition to alternative forms of energy and will be interesting to see what the future holds for renewable energy.
> Which countries have the biggest oil reserves?
> 
> A 2013 study concluded that peak oil "appears probable before 2030", and that there was a "significant risk" that it would occur before 2020
> Peak oil - Wikipedia
> 
> When the price of gasoline rises, people naturally buy less of it; the amount of this reduction being determined by the amount of the price increase and the consumer's elasticity of demand for gasoline. This does not necessarily mean that people will drive less (though it is likely), it may mean that consumers trade in their SUVs for smaller cars, hybrid vehicles, electric cars or cars that run on alternative fuels.
> *Will the World Ever Run Out of Oil?*
> 
> Countries With The Largest Proven Oil Reserves
> Rank   Country           Reserves (millions of barrels), 2017 US EIA
> 1          Venezuela       300,878
> 2          Saudi Arabia   266,455
> 3          Canada           169,709
> 4          Iran      158,400
> 5          Iraq      142,503
> 6          Kuwait 101,500
> 7          United Arab Emirates 97,800
> 8          Russia 80,000
> 9          Libya   48,363
> 10        United States  39,230
> 11        Nigeria 37,062
> 12        Kazakhstan     30,000
> 13        China   25,620
> 14        Qatar   25,244
> 15        Brazil   12,999
> 16        Algeria 12,200
> 17        Angola 8,273
> 18        Ecuador          8,273
> 19        Mexico 7,640
> 20        Azerbaijan       7,000
> ---------------------------
> TOTAL 1,609,149 million proven barrels
> The World’s Largest Oil Reserves By Country
> 
> It is expected that by the year 2035, demand will reach 110.3 million barrels a day or 40,259 a year
> 1609149/40259 = 40+/- years left
> 
> The Truth Will Set You Free
> 
> .,,.,.,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,……………………………
> 
> *It is expected that by the year 2035, demand will reach 110.3 million barrels a day.* Companies eventually will start to transition to alternative forms of energy and will be interesting to see what the future holds for renewable energy.
> Which countries have the biggest oil reserves?
> 
> *A 2013 study concluded that peak oil "appears probable before 2030*", and that there was a "significant risk" that it would occur before 2020
> Peak oil - Wikipedia
> 
> _When the price of gasoline rises, people naturally buy less of it; the amount of this reduction being determined by the amount of the price increase and the consumer's elasticity of demand for gasoline. This does not necessarily mean that people will drive less (though it is likely), it may mean that consumers trade in their SUVs for smaller cars, hybrid vehicles, electric cars or cars that run on alternative fuels._
> *Will the World Ever Run Out of Oil?*









No, this is not a fact.  Old, depleted fields are recharging in some areas.  It seems more research is needed on how oil is created.


----------



## watchingfromafar

westwall said:


> No, this is not a fact. Old, depleted fields are recharging in some areas. It seems more research is needed on how oil is created.



Keep telling yourself this, it will make it easier for you to sleep at night
What is not mentioning is the decline in current oil fields. As new oil fields are found old one dry up. Now put that into your predictions

*Oil field production decline*
Individual oil wells are typically within multi-well oil fields. As with individual wells, the production curves for oil fields vary depending on geology and how they are developed and produced. Some fields have symmetric bell-shaped production profiles, but it is more common that the period of inclining production is briefer and steeper than the subsequent decline. More than half the production usually occurs after a field has reached a peak or plateau. Production profiles of many fields show distinct peaks, but for giant oil fields, it is more common for production to reach and maintain a plateau before declining. Once a field declines, it usually follows an exponential decline.
Oil depletion - Wikipedia

*A 2013 study concluded that peak oil "appears probable before 2030*", and that there was a "significant risk" that it would occur before 2020
Peak oil - Wikipedia

_When the price of gasoline rises, people naturally buy less of it; the amount of this reduction being determined by the amount of the price increase and the consumer's elasticity of demand for gasoline. This does not necessarily mean that people will drive less (though it is likely), it may mean that consumers trade in their SUVs for smaller cars, hybrid vehicles, electric cars or cars that run on alternative fuels._
*Will the World Ever Run Out of Oil?*
The truth will set you free or lying to yourself will give you nightmares





-


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, this is not a fact. Old, depleted fields are recharging in some areas. It seems more research is needed on how oil is created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep telling yourself this, it will make it easier for you to sleep at night
> What is not mentioning is the decline in current oil fields. As new oil fields are found old one dry up. Now put that into your predictions
> 
> *Oil field production decline*
> Individual oil wells are typically within multi-well oil fields. As with individual wells, the production curves for oil fields vary depending on geology and how they are developed and produced. Some fields have symmetric bell-shaped production profiles, but it is more common that the period of inclining production is briefer and steeper than the subsequent decline. More than half the production usually occurs after a field has reached a peak or plateau. Production profiles of many fields show distinct peaks, but for giant oil fields, it is more common for production to reach and maintain a plateau before declining. Once a field declines, it usually follows an exponential decline.
> Oil depletion - Wikipedia
> 
> *A 2013 study concluded that peak oil "appears probable before 2030*", and that there was a "significant risk" that it would occur before 2020
> Peak oil - Wikipedia
> 
> _When the price of gasoline rises, people naturally buy less of it; the amount of this reduction being determined by the amount of the price increase and the consumer's elasticity of demand for gasoline. This does not necessarily mean that people will drive less (though it is likely), it may mean that consumers trade in their SUVs for smaller cars, hybrid vehicles, electric cars or cars that run on alternative fuels._
> *Will the World Ever Run Out of Oil?*
> The truth will set you free or lying to yourself will give you nightmares
> View attachment 282082
> 
> 
> -
Click to expand...


*A 2013 study concluded that peak oil "appears probable before 2030*",

I'm sure you could find studies from the 80s that said peak oil "appears probable before 2000".


----------



## deanrd

The world is a ball hanging in space. It’s resources are finite. Eventually there will be no more. Because that’s just the way reality works. Sad that you have to explain this. It seems so obvious.


----------



## watchingfromafar

View attachment 282084


Toddsterpatriot said:


> I'm sure you could find studies from the 80s that said peak oil "appears probable before 2000".



The folks haven't heard you yet, please email France, Germany and the rest who think otherwise~~~~
_Renewable update---

Monaco—

Since 1994, the Government has been encouraging the use of clean energy vehicles in the Principality, in particular by granting purchasing subsidies. The Government wished to adapt the scale of subsidies to take account of the increased availability of hybrid versions, as this had led to the granting of subsidies to vehicles that cause too much pollution. With this in mind, the State took note of incentive schemes in operation in neighbouring countries, especially in France. It also demonstrated a more proactive policy, modifying these policies to suit the needs of Monaco – a step that continues to favour electric technology.

In this new scheme, subsidies for electric vehicles are still 30% of the purchase price including all taxes, with a ceiling of 9,000 Euros. There is a ceiling of 3,000 Euros for two-wheeled vehicles.

*Electric vehicles also benefit from specific advantages, such as free recharging at the 574 charging points in public car parks, and at the fast and semi-fast charging points on public roads*: at the lower end of Rue Grimaldi, on Place des Moulins and at 24 Avenue de Fontvieille (in front of the Single Buoy Mooring building). They also have their own special identification, "VE" (for véhicule électrique - electric vehicle), which offers free on-street parking in Monaco and a free annual sticker._
*Subsidy scheme for electric and hybrid vehicles / Soft mobility / The Environment / Policy & Practice / Portail du Gouvernement - Monaco*_
_
In France and the Uk petrol and diesel cars will not be manufactured or imported by 2040.

-


----------



## watchingfromafar

I don’t know what all this hoopla is all about.

Every time someone farts this adds to our natural gas supply.

-


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> View attachment 282084
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you could find studies from the 80s that said peak oil "appears probable before 2000".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The folks haven't heard you yet, please email France, Germany and the rest who think otherwise~~~~
> _Renewable update---
> 
> Monaco—
> 
> Since 1994, the Government has been encouraging the use of clean energy vehicles in the Principality, in particular by granting purchasing subsidies. The Government wished to adapt the scale of subsidies to take account of the increased availability of hybrid versions, as this had led to the granting of subsidies to vehicles that cause too much pollution. With this in mind, the State took note of incentive schemes in operation in neighbouring countries, especially in France. It also demonstrated a more proactive policy, modifying these policies to suit the needs of Monaco – a step that continues to favour electric technology.
> 
> In this new scheme, subsidies for electric vehicles are still 30% of the purchase price including all taxes, with a ceiling of 9,000 Euros. There is a ceiling of 3,000 Euros for two-wheeled vehicles.
> 
> *Electric vehicles also benefit from specific advantages, such as free recharging at the 574 charging points in public car parks, and at the fast and semi-fast charging points on public roads*: at the lower end of Rue Grimaldi, on Place des Moulins and at 24 Avenue de Fontvieille (in front of the Single Buoy Mooring building). They also have their own special identification, "VE" (for véhicule électrique - electric vehicle), which offers free on-street parking in Monaco and a free annual sticker._
> *Subsidy scheme for electric and hybrid vehicles / Soft mobility / The Environment / Policy & Practice / Portail du Gouvernement - Monaco*
> 
> In France and the Uk petrol and diesel cars will not be manufactured or imported by 2040.
> 
> -
Click to expand...


*The folks haven't heard you yet, please email France, Germany and the rest who think otherwise~~~~*

They haven't heard me pointing out your bad math?

Or is there something more specific they haven't heard from me?

*In France and the Uk petrol and diesel cars will not be manufactured or imported by 2040.*

And all the kids will be above average.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> And all the kids will be above average.


And you will be living in a rest home
living on your social security checks
-


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And all the kids will be above average.
> 
> 
> 
> And you will be living in a rest home
> living on your social security checks
> -
Click to expand...


Burning old tires in the backyard.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Burning old tires in the backyard.


At least you have a backyard.
I don't -


----------



## westwall

watchingfromafar said:


> View attachment 282084
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you could find studies from the 80s that said peak oil "appears probable before 2000".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The folks haven't heard you yet, please email France, Germany and the rest who think otherwise~~~~
> _Renewable update---
> 
> Monaco—
> 
> Since 1994, the Government has been encouraging the use of clean energy vehicles in the Principality, in particular by granting purchasing subsidies. The Government wished to adapt the scale of subsidies to take account of the increased availability of hybrid versions, as this had led to the granting of subsidies to vehicles that cause too much pollution. With this in mind, the State took note of incentive schemes in operation in neighbouring countries, especially in France. It also demonstrated a more proactive policy, modifying these policies to suit the needs of Monaco – a step that continues to favour electric technology.
> 
> In this new scheme, subsidies for electric vehicles are still 30% of the purchase price including all taxes, with a ceiling of 9,000 Euros. There is a ceiling of 3,000 Euros for two-wheeled vehicles.
> 
> *Electric vehicles also benefit from specific advantages, such as free recharging at the 574 charging points in public car parks, and at the fast and semi-fast charging points on public roads*: at the lower end of Rue Grimaldi, on Place des Moulins and at 24 Avenue de Fontvieille (in front of the Single Buoy Mooring building). They also have their own special identification, "VE" (for véhicule électrique - electric vehicle), which offers free on-street parking in Monaco and a free annual sticker._
> *Subsidy scheme for electric and hybrid vehicles / Soft mobility / The Environment / Policy & Practice / Portail du Gouvernement - Monaco*
> 
> In France and the Uk petrol and diesel cars will not be manufactured or imported by 2040.
> 
> -
Click to expand...




Repeating the same failed claims over and over doesn't help you.

You would realize that if you could actually think foy your self!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Toddsterpatriot said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 282084
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you could find studies from the 80s that said peak oil "appears probable before 2000".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The folks haven't heard you yet, please email France, Germany and the rest who think otherwise~~~~
> _Renewable update---
> 
> Monaco—
> 
> Since 1994, the Government has been encouraging the use of clean energy vehicles in the Principality, in particular by granting purchasing subsidies. The Government wished to adapt the scale of subsidies to take account of the increased availability of hybrid versions, as this had led to the granting of subsidies to vehicles that cause too much pollution. With this in mind, the State took note of incentive schemes in operation in neighbouring countries, especially in France. It also demonstrated a more proactive policy, modifying these policies to suit the needs of Monaco – a step that continues to favour electric technology.
> 
> In this new scheme, subsidies for electric vehicles are still 30% of the purchase price including all taxes, with a ceiling of 9,000 Euros. There is a ceiling of 3,000 Euros for two-wheeled vehicles.
> 
> *Electric vehicles also benefit from specific advantages, such as free recharging at the 574 charging points in public car parks, and at the fast and semi-fast charging points on public roads*: at the lower end of Rue Grimaldi, on Place des Moulins and at 24 Avenue de Fontvieille (in front of the Single Buoy Mooring building). They also have their own special identification, "VE" (for véhicule électrique - electric vehicle), which offers free on-street parking in Monaco and a free annual sticker._
> *Subsidy scheme for electric and hybrid vehicles / Soft mobility / The Environment / Policy & Practice / Portail du Gouvernement - Monaco*
> 
> In France and the Uk petrol and diesel cars will not be manufactured or imported by 2040.
> 
> -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The folks haven't heard you yet, please email France, Germany and the rest who think otherwise~~~~*
> 
> They haven't heard me pointing out your bad math?
> 
> Or is there something more specific they haven't heard from me?
> 
> *In France and the Uk petrol and diesel cars will not be manufactured or imported by 2040.*
> 
> And all the kids will be above average.
Click to expand...


*The folks haven't heard you yet, please email France, Germany and the rest who think otherwise~~~*

Think otherwise than what?


----------



## watchingfromafar

westwall said:


> You would realize that if you could actually think foy your self!


Besides thinking for myself, I have a computer with access to Google which gives me access to a world wide stream of data which far exceeds my own limited view of the world around me.

-


----------



## watchingfromafar

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Think otherwise than what?


If you have forgotten what forum this is and are here just to post whatever then there isn't much left for you and I to talk about.
-


----------



## Rigby5

watchingfromafar said:


> There are a lot of folks who believe "the end of oil is near" is an old stale myth but at least  remember that there will be a point when this will be true; this you cannot deny.
> Even the illiterate has a right to be ignorant. I know the data below will be difficult for you to understand so please ask a friend to explain it to you.
> 
> It is expected that by the year 2035, demand will reach 110.3 million barrels a day. Companies eventually will start to transition to alternative forms of energy and will be interesting to see what the future holds for renewable energy.
> Which countries have the biggest oil reserves?
> 
> A 2013 study concluded that peak oil "appears probable before 2030", and that there was a "significant risk" that it would occur before 2020
> Peak oil - Wikipedia
> 
> When the price of gasoline rises, people naturally buy less of it; the amount of this reduction being determined by the amount of the price increase and the consumer's elasticity of demand for gasoline. This does not necessarily mean that people will drive less (though it is likely), it may mean that consumers trade in their SUVs for smaller cars, hybrid vehicles, electric cars or cars that run on alternative fuels.
> *Will the World Ever Run Out of Oil?*
> 
> Countries With The Largest Proven Oil Reserves
> Rank   Country           Reserves (millions of barrels), 2017 US EIA
> 1          Venezuela       300,878
> 2          Saudi Arabia   266,455
> 3          Canada           169,709
> 4          Iran      158,400
> 5          Iraq      142,503
> 6          Kuwait 101,500
> 7          United Arab Emirates 97,800
> 8          Russia 80,000
> 9          Libya   48,363
> 10        United States  39,230
> 11        Nigeria 37,062
> 12        Kazakhstan     30,000
> 13        China   25,620
> 14        Qatar   25,244
> 15        Brazil   12,999
> 16        Algeria 12,200
> 17        Angola 8,273
> 18        Ecuador          8,273
> 19        Mexico 7,640
> 20        Azerbaijan       7,000
> ---------------------------
> TOTAL 1,609,149 million proven barrels
> The World’s Largest Oil Reserves By Country
> 
> It is expected that by the year 2035, demand will reach 110.3 million barrels a day or 40,259 a year
> 1609149/40259 = 40+/- years left
> 
> The Truth Will Set You Free
> 
> .,,.,.,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,……………………………
> 
> *It is expected that by the year 2035, demand will reach 110.3 million barrels a day.* Companies eventually will start to transition to alternative forms of energy and will be interesting to see what the future holds for renewable energy.
> Which countries have the biggest oil reserves?
> 
> *A 2013 study concluded that peak oil "appears probable before 2030*", and that there was a "significant risk" that it would occur before 2020
> Peak oil - Wikipedia
> 
> _When the price of gasoline rises, people naturally buy less of it; the amount of this reduction being determined by the amount of the price increase and the consumer's elasticity of demand for gasoline. This does not necessarily mean that people will drive less (though it is likely), it may mean that consumers trade in their SUVs for smaller cars, hybrid vehicles, electric cars or cars that run on alternative fuels._
> *Will the World Ever Run Out of Oil?*



The experts all agree the peak was around 1999, and we have less than half left now.
It takes over 100 million years to make new oil.
It has to be from an old ocean bottom that gets covered over.
We are never going to be able to harvest most of the oil that is left, because it is too deep down in the ocean and the pressures are to high.
we have 20 to 50 years worth lett, and that is it.
Switching to smaller cars won't help much because that will only be going from 20 mpg to 30 mpg.
And the SUVs that can do that switch are a minority even now.
Most people already have switched.

Much of the chart is misleading.
For example most of the oil and Canada and Venezuela is tar sands, which are expensive and high water use to steam out.  They are not very accessible.


----------



## Rigby5

watchingfromafar said:


> View attachment 282084
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you could find studies from the 80s that said peak oil "appears probable before 2000".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The folks haven't heard you yet, please email France, Germany and the rest who think otherwise~~~~
> _Renewable update---
> 
> Monaco—
> 
> Since 1994, the Government has been encouraging the use of clean energy vehicles in the Principality, in particular by granting purchasing subsidies. The Government wished to adapt the scale of subsidies to take account of the increased availability of hybrid versions, as this had led to the granting of subsidies to vehicles that cause too much pollution. With this in mind, the State took note of incentive schemes in operation in neighbouring countries, especially in France. It also demonstrated a more proactive policy, modifying these policies to suit the needs of Monaco – a step that continues to favour electric technology.
> 
> In this new scheme, subsidies for electric vehicles are still 30% of the purchase price including all taxes, with a ceiling of 9,000 Euros. There is a ceiling of 3,000 Euros for two-wheeled vehicles.
> 
> *Electric vehicles also benefit from specific advantages, such as free recharging at the 574 charging points in public car parks, and at the fast and semi-fast charging points on public roads*: at the lower end of Rue Grimaldi, on Place des Moulins and at 24 Avenue de Fontvieille (in front of the Single Buoy Mooring building). They also have their own special identification, "VE" (for véhicule électrique - electric vehicle), which offers free on-street parking in Monaco and a free annual sticker._
> *Subsidy scheme for electric and hybrid vehicles / Soft mobility / The Environment / Policy & Practice / Portail du Gouvernement - Monaco*
> 
> In France and the Uk petrol and diesel cars will not be manufactured or imported by 2040.
> 
> -
Click to expand...


Electric vehicles actually pollute more than diesels.
That is because coal is still the number one source of electricity in most places, and it has more emissions.
Also generating, transmitting, storing, retrieving, and converting electricity back into kinetic energy is very inefficient.
Batteries weigh a lot.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Rigby5 said:


> Batteries weigh a lot.


So does a full tank of gasoline
I envision you drive up to a filling station over an exchanger unit. The unit reaches up, removes your discharged battery and replaces it with a charged one.

The process will take less time than it took to fill a standard gas tank.

You will get about 200-300 miles on your charged battery.

Or so I envision it -


----------



## airplanemechanic

watchingfromafar said:


> There are a lot of folks who believe "the end of oil is near" is an old stale myth but at least  remember that there will be a point when this will be true; this you cannot deny.
> Even the illiterate has a right to be ignorant. I know the data below will be difficult for you to understand so please ask a friend to explain it to you.
> 
> It is expected that by the year 2035, demand will reach 110.3 million barrels a day. Companies eventually will start to transition to alternative forms of energy and will be interesting to see what the future holds for renewable energy.
> Which countries have the biggest oil reserves?
> 
> A 2013 study concluded that peak oil "appears probable before 2030", and that there was a "significant risk" that it would occur before 2020
> Peak oil - Wikipedia
> 
> When the price of gasoline rises, people naturally buy less of it; the amount of this reduction being determined by the amount of the price increase and the consumer's elasticity of demand for gasoline. This does not necessarily mean that people will drive less (though it is likely), it may mean that consumers trade in their SUVs for smaller cars, hybrid vehicles, electric cars or cars that run on alternative fuels.
> *Will the World Ever Run Out of Oil?*
> 
> Countries With The Largest Proven Oil Reserves
> Rank   Country           Reserves (millions of barrels), 2017 US EIA
> 1          Venezuela       300,878
> 2          Saudi Arabia   266,455
> 3          Canada           169,709
> 4          Iran      158,400
> 5          Iraq      142,503
> 6          Kuwait 101,500
> 7          United Arab Emirates 97,800
> 8          Russia 80,000
> 9          Libya   48,363
> 10        United States  39,230
> 11        Nigeria 37,062
> 12        Kazakhstan     30,000
> 13        China   25,620
> 14        Qatar   25,244
> 15        Brazil   12,999
> 16        Algeria 12,200
> 17        Angola 8,273
> 18        Ecuador          8,273
> 19        Mexico 7,640
> 20        Azerbaijan       7,000
> ---------------------------
> TOTAL 1,609,149 million proven barrels
> The World’s Largest Oil Reserves By Country
> 
> It is expected that by the year 2035, demand will reach 110.3 million barrels a day or 40,259 a year
> 1609149/40259 = 40+/- years left
> 
> The Truth Will Set You Free
> 
> .,,.,.,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,……………………………
> 
> *It is expected that by the year 2035, demand will reach 110.3 million barrels a day.* Companies eventually will start to transition to alternative forms of energy and will be interesting to see what the future holds for renewable energy.
> Which countries have the biggest oil reserves?
> 
> *A 2013 study concluded that peak oil "appears probable before 2030*", and that there was a "significant risk" that it would occur before 2020
> Peak oil - Wikipedia
> 
> _When the price of gasoline rises, people naturally buy less of it; the amount of this reduction being determined by the amount of the price increase and the consumer's elasticity of demand for gasoline. This does not necessarily mean that people will drive less (though it is likely), it may mean that consumers trade in their SUVs for smaller cars, hybrid vehicles, electric cars or cars that run on alternative fuels._
> *Will the World Ever Run Out of Oil?*



Why did you take known oil reserves and divide them by expected oil need in 15 years? That assumes 2 things:

Oil needs today will be more than they are which they aren't so they're wrong.
That in 15 years we won't make ANY new oil discoveries which of course is also ludicrous.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think otherwise than what?
> 
> 
> 
> If you have forgotten what forum this is and are here just to post whatever then there isn't much left for you and I to talk about.
> -
Click to expand...








I know what the forum is, it's your gibberish that I can't decipher.

France and Germany think otherwise, that "there were no studies in the 80s"?

What position of mine in post #446 link >>>Oil discoveries dispel "Peak Oil" as myth 

could they, or anyone, disagree with?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

watchingfromafar said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Batteries weigh a lot.
> 
> 
> 
> So does a full tank of gasoline
> I envision you drive up to a filling station over an exchanger unit. The unit reaches up, removes your discharged battery and replaces it with a charged one.
> 
> The process will take less time than it took to fill a standard gas tank.
> 
> You will get about 200-300 miles on your charged battery.
> 
> Or so I envision it -
Click to expand...


*So does a full tank of gasoline*

The gas tank gets lighter as you use it, the battery does not.


----------



## Rigby5

watchingfromafar said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Batteries weigh a lot.
> 
> 
> 
> So does a full tank of gasoline
> I envision you drive up to a filling station over an exchanger unit. The unit reaches up, removes your discharged battery and replaces it with a charged one.
> 
> The process will take less time than it took to fill a standard gas tank.
> 
> You will get about 200-300 miles on your charged battery.
> 
> Or so I envision it -
Click to expand...


Full gastank is about 160 pounds.
EV batteries, about 1500 pounds.
Almost 10 times as much.

But I also thought battery exchanges would make me want to buy EV.
But they won't do it.
What they told me is that there is no battery standard, batteries are being tucked into odd shaped spaces, and the stations don't want the risk of being responsible for when batteries go bad, because they cost over $5000, and only last about 10 years.


----------



## westwall

Rigby5 said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot of folks who believe "the end of oil is near" is an old stale myth but at least  remember that there will be a point when this will be true; this you cannot deny.
> Even the illiterate has a right to be ignorant. I know the data below will be difficult for you to understand so please ask a friend to explain it to you.
> 
> It is expected that by the year 2035, demand will reach 110.3 million barrels a day. Companies eventually will start to transition to alternative forms of energy and will be interesting to see what the future holds for renewable energy.
> Which countries have the biggest oil reserves?
> 
> A 2013 study concluded that peak oil "appears probable before 2030", and that there was a "significant risk" that it would occur before 2020
> Peak oil - Wikipedia
> 
> When the price of gasoline rises, people naturally buy less of it; the amount of this reduction being determined by the amount of the price increase and the consumer's elasticity of demand for gasoline. This does not necessarily mean that people will drive less (though it is likely), it may mean that consumers trade in their SUVs for smaller cars, hybrid vehicles, electric cars or cars that run on alternative fuels.
> *Will the World Ever Run Out of Oil?*
> 
> Countries With The Largest Proven Oil Reserves
> Rank   Country           Reserves (millions of barrels), 2017 US EIA
> 1          Venezuela       300,878
> 2          Saudi Arabia   266,455
> 3          Canada           169,709
> 4          Iran      158,400
> 5          Iraq      142,503
> 6          Kuwait 101,500
> 7          United Arab Emirates 97,800
> 8          Russia 80,000
> 9          Libya   48,363
> 10        United States  39,230
> 11        Nigeria 37,062
> 12        Kazakhstan     30,000
> 13        China   25,620
> 14        Qatar   25,244
> 15        Brazil   12,999
> 16        Algeria 12,200
> 17        Angola 8,273
> 18        Ecuador          8,273
> 19        Mexico 7,640
> 20        Azerbaijan       7,000
> ---------------------------
> TOTAL 1,609,149 million proven barrels
> The World’s Largest Oil Reserves By Country
> 
> It is expected that by the year 2035, demand will reach 110.3 million barrels a day or 40,259 a year
> 1609149/40259 = 40+/- years left
> 
> The Truth Will Set You Free
> 
> .,,.,.,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,……………………………
> 
> *It is expected that by the year 2035, demand will reach 110.3 million barrels a day.* Companies eventually will start to transition to alternative forms of energy and will be interesting to see what the future holds for renewable energy.
> Which countries have the biggest oil reserves?
> 
> *A 2013 study concluded that peak oil "appears probable before 2030*", and that there was a "significant risk" that it would occur before 2020
> Peak oil - Wikipedia
> 
> _When the price of gasoline rises, people naturally buy less of it; the amount of this reduction being determined by the amount of the price increase and the consumer's elasticity of demand for gasoline. This does not necessarily mean that people will drive less (though it is likely), it may mean that consumers trade in their SUVs for smaller cars, hybrid vehicles, electric cars or cars that run on alternative fuels._
> *Will the World Ever Run Out of Oil?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The experts all agree the peak was around 1999, and we have less than half left now.
> It takes over 100 million years to make new oil.
> It has to be from an old ocean bottom that gets covered over.
> We are never going to be able to harvest most of the oil that is left, because it is too deep down in the ocean and the pressures are to high.
> we have 20 to 50 years worth lett, and that is it.
> Switching to smaller cars won't help much because that will only be going from 20 mpg to 30 mpg.
> And the SUVs that can do that switch are a minority even now.
> Most people already have switched.
> 
> Much of the chart is misleading.
> For example most of the oil and Canada and Venezuela is tar sands, which are expensive and high water use to steam out.  They are not very accessible.
Click to expand...







This post means you don't even have a clue what peak oil is.


----------



## westwall

watchingfromafar said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Batteries weigh a lot.
> 
> 
> 
> So does a full tank of gasoline
> I envision you drive up to a filling station over an exchanger unit. The unit reaches up, removes your discharged battery and replaces it with a charged one.
> 
> The process will take less time than it took to fill a standard gas tank.
> 
> You will get about 200-300 miles on your charged battery.
> 
> Or so I envision it -
Click to expand...






And what do you do with the toxic battery remains when they fail?


----------



## bripat9643

deanrd said:


> The world is a ball hanging in space. It’s resources are finite. Eventually there will be no more. Because that’s just the way reality works. Sad that you have to explain this. It seems so obvious.


Resources are virtually infinite, especially if we start harvesting them from space.


----------



## Vandalshandle

watchingfromafar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, this is not a fact. Old, depleted fields are recharging in some areas. It seems more research is needed on how oil is created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep telling yourself this, it will make it easier for you to sleep at night
> What is not mentioning is the decline in current oil fields. As new oil fields are found old one dry up. Now put that into your predictions
> 
> *Oil field production decline*
> Individual oil wells are typically within multi-well oil fields. As with individual wells, the production curves for oil fields vary depending on geology and how they are developed and produced. Some fields have symmetric bell-shaped production profiles, but it is more common that the period of inclining production is briefer and steeper than the subsequent decline. More than half the production usually occurs after a field has reached a peak or plateau. Production profiles of many fields show distinct peaks, but for giant oil fields, it is more common for production to reach and maintain a plateau before declining. Once a field declines, it usually follows an exponential decline.
> Oil depletion - Wikipedia
> 
> *A 2013 study concluded that peak oil "appears probable before 2030*", and that there was a "significant risk" that it would occur before 2020
> Peak oil - Wikipedia
> 
> _When the price of gasoline rises, people naturally buy less of it; the amount of this reduction being determined by the amount of the price increase and the consumer's elasticity of demand for gasoline. This does not necessarily mean that people will drive less (though it is likely), it may mean that consumers trade in their SUVs for smaller cars, hybrid vehicles, electric cars or cars that run on alternative fuels._
> *Will the World Ever Run Out of Oil?*
> The truth will set you free or lying to yourself will give you nightmares
> View attachment 282082
> 
> 
> -
Click to expand...


So, you advocate that we just continue to use a fuel resource without regard to the fact that it is none renewable.


----------



## there4eyeM

All this just to support antique technology. Engines that are not even 50% efficient and are filthy polluters.
What can we do to improve human aesthetic values?


----------



## westwall

there4eyeM said:


> All this just to support antique technology. Engines that are not even 50% efficient and are filthy polluters.
> What can we do to improve human aesthetic values?








Yeah, windmills are sooooo modern


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

there4eyeM said:


> All this just to support antique technology. Engines that are not even 50% efficient and are filthy polluters.
> What can we do to improve human aesthetic values?



* Engines that are not even 50% efficient*

How efficient are windmills and solar cells?


----------



## Wyatt earp

watchingfromafar said:


> View attachment 282084
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you could find studies from the 80s that said peak oil "appears probable before 2000".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The folks haven't heard you yet, please email France, Germany and the rest who think otherwise~~~~
> _Renewable update---
> 
> Monaco—
> 
> Since 1994, the Government has been encouraging the use of clean energy vehicles in the Principality, in particular by granting purchasing subsidies. The Government wished to adapt the scale of subsidies to take account of the increased availability of hybrid versions, as this had led to the granting of subsidies to vehicles that cause too much pollution. With this in mind, the State took note of incentive schemes in operation in neighbouring countries, especially in France. It also demonstrated a more proactive policy, modifying these policies to suit the needs of Monaco – a step that continues to favour electric technology.
> 
> In this new scheme, subsidies for electric vehicles are still 30% of the purchase price including all taxes, with a ceiling of 9,000 Euros. There is a ceiling of 3,000 Euros for two-wheeled vehicles.
> 
> *Electric vehicles also benefit from specific advantages, such as free recharging at the 574 charging points in public car parks, and at the fast and semi-fast charging points on public roads*: at the lower end of Rue Grimaldi, on Place des Moulins and at 24 Avenue de Fontvieille (in front of the Single Buoy Mooring building). They also have their own special identification, "VE" (for véhicule électrique - electric vehicle), which offers free on-street parking in Monaco and a free annual sticker._
> *Subsidy scheme for electric and hybrid vehicles / Soft mobility / The Environment / Policy & Practice / Portail du Gouvernement - Monaco*
> 
> In France and the Uk petrol and diesel cars will not be manufactured or imported by 2040.
> 
> -
Click to expand...



Free?


You are not the sharpest knife in the drawer are you????



Germany has three times the electric power Bill's as us normal Americans (not counting high.price California) and live in tiny houses


.


----------



## Wyatt earp

watchingfromafar said:


> View attachment 282084
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you could find studies from the 80s that said peak oil "appears probable before 2000".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The folks haven't heard you yet, please email France, Germany and the rest who think otherwise~~~~
> _Renewable update---
> 
> Monaco—
> 
> Since 1994, the Government has been encouraging the use of clean energy vehicles in the Principality, in particular by granting purchasing subsidies. The Government wished to adapt the scale of subsidies to take account of the increased availability of hybrid versions, as this had led to the granting of subsidies to vehicles that cause too much pollution. With this in mind, the State took note of incentive schemes in operation in neighbouring countries, especially in France. It also demonstrated a more proactive policy, modifying these policies to suit the needs of Monaco – a step that continues to favour electric technology.
> 
> In this new scheme, subsidies for electric vehicles are still 30% of the purchase price including all taxes, with a ceiling of 9,000 Euros. There is a ceiling of 3,000 Euros for two-wheeled vehicles.
> 
> *Electric vehicles also benefit from specific advantages, such as free recharging at the 574 charging points in public car parks, and at the fast and semi-fast charging points on public roads*: at the lower end of Rue Grimaldi, on Place des Moulins and at 24 Avenue de Fontvieille (in front of the Single Buoy Mooring building). They also have their own special identification, "VE" (for véhicule électrique - electric vehicle), which offers free on-street parking in Monaco and a free annual sticker._
> *Subsidy scheme for electric and hybrid vehicles / Soft mobility / The Environment / Policy & Practice / Portail du Gouvernement - Monaco*
> 
> In France and the Uk petrol and diesel cars will not be manufactured or imported by 2040.
> 
> -
Click to expand...




*In France and the Uk petrol and diesel cars will not be manufactured or imported by 2040.*



Great job, by 2080 the USA has a law that everyone will ride a Unicorn. 


.


----------



## there4eyeM

Even the slightest gesture on the part of the Americans at conservation in any genuine sense of the term would improve the world and reduce energy costs.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

there4eyeM said:


> Even the slightest gesture on the part of the Americans at conservation in any genuine sense of the term would improve the world and reduce energy costs.



US fracking has done more to improve the world than all of the wasteful government spending Obozo threw at the issue.


----------



## westwall

there4eyeM said:


> Even the slightest gesture on the part of the Americans at conservation in any genuine sense of the term would improve the world and reduce energy costs.








What rock have you been hiding under?  We are ALREADY doing that.  We have lowered our carbon output to below 1995 levels.  How about the rest of the world catch up to us.


----------



## Rigby5

airplanemechanic said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot of folks who believe "the end of oil is near" is an old stale myth but at least  remember that there will be a point when this will be true; this you cannot deny.
> Even the illiterate has a right to be ignorant. I know the data below will be difficult for you to understand so please ask a friend to explain it to you.
> 
> It is expected that by the year 2035, demand will reach 110.3 million barrels a day. Companies eventually will start to transition to alternative forms of energy and will be interesting to see what the future holds for renewable energy.
> Which countries have the biggest oil reserves?
> 
> A 2013 study concluded that peak oil "appears probable before 2030", and that there was a "significant risk" that it would occur before 2020
> Peak oil - Wikipedia
> 
> When the price of gasoline rises, people naturally buy less of it; the amount of this reduction being determined by the amount of the price increase and the consumer's elasticity of demand for gasoline. This does not necessarily mean that people will drive less (though it is likely), it may mean that consumers trade in their SUVs for smaller cars, hybrid vehicles, electric cars or cars that run on alternative fuels.
> *Will the World Ever Run Out of Oil?*
> 
> Countries With The Largest Proven Oil Reserves
> Rank   Country           Reserves (millions of barrels), 2017 US EIA
> 1          Venezuela       300,878
> 2          Saudi Arabia   266,455
> 3          Canada           169,709
> 4          Iran      158,400
> 5          Iraq      142,503
> 6          Kuwait 101,500
> 7          United Arab Emirates 97,800
> 8          Russia 80,000
> 9          Libya   48,363
> 10        United States  39,230
> 11        Nigeria 37,062
> 12        Kazakhstan     30,000
> 13        China   25,620
> 14        Qatar   25,244
> 15        Brazil   12,999
> 16        Algeria 12,200
> 17        Angola 8,273
> 18        Ecuador          8,273
> 19        Mexico 7,640
> 20        Azerbaijan       7,000
> ---------------------------
> TOTAL 1,609,149 million proven barrels
> The World’s Largest Oil Reserves By Country
> 
> It is expected that by the year 2035, demand will reach 110.3 million barrels a day or 40,259 a year
> 1609149/40259 = 40+/- years left
> 
> The Truth Will Set You Free
> 
> .,,.,.,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,……………………………
> 
> *It is expected that by the year 2035, demand will reach 110.3 million barrels a day.* Companies eventually will start to transition to alternative forms of energy and will be interesting to see what the future holds for renewable energy.
> Which countries have the biggest oil reserves?
> 
> *A 2013 study concluded that peak oil "appears probable before 2030*", and that there was a "significant risk" that it would occur before 2020
> Peak oil - Wikipedia
> 
> _When the price of gasoline rises, people naturally buy less of it; the amount of this reduction being determined by the amount of the price increase and the consumer's elasticity of demand for gasoline. This does not necessarily mean that people will drive less (though it is likely), it may mean that consumers trade in their SUVs for smaller cars, hybrid vehicles, electric cars or cars that run on alternative fuels._
> *Will the World Ever Run Out of Oil?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you take known oil reserves and divide them by expected oil need in 15 years? That assumes 2 things:
> 
> Oil needs today will be more than they are which they aren't so they're wrong.
> That in 15 years we won't make ANY new oil discoveries which of course is also ludicrous.
Click to expand...


Of course oil needs will always be increasing.
They always have, and increase by because the population constantly increases, and because individuals constantly use more energy as technology increases.

And the assumptions include all the new oil discoveries.
We pump all the known oil almost immediately, so predictions of reserves are always based on assumptions about new oil discovery predictions.


----------



## Rigby5

westwall said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot of folks who believe "the end of oil is near" is an old stale myth but at least  remember that there will be a point when this will be true; this you cannot deny.
> Even the illiterate has a right to be ignorant. I know the data below will be difficult for you to understand so please ask a friend to explain it to you.
> 
> It is expected that by the year 2035, demand will reach 110.3 million barrels a day. Companies eventually will start to transition to alternative forms of energy and will be interesting to see what the future holds for renewable energy.
> Which countries have the biggest oil reserves?
> 
> A 2013 study concluded that peak oil "appears probable before 2030", and that there was a "significant risk" that it would occur before 2020
> Peak oil - Wikipedia
> 
> When the price of gasoline rises, people naturally buy less of it; the amount of this reduction being determined by the amount of the price increase and the consumer's elasticity of demand for gasoline. This does not necessarily mean that people will drive less (though it is likely), it may mean that consumers trade in their SUVs for smaller cars, hybrid vehicles, electric cars or cars that run on alternative fuels.
> *Will the World Ever Run Out of Oil?*
> 
> Countries With The Largest Proven Oil Reserves
> Rank   Country           Reserves (millions of barrels), 2017 US EIA
> 1          Venezuela       300,878
> 2          Saudi Arabia   266,455
> 3          Canada           169,709
> 4          Iran      158,400
> 5          Iraq      142,503
> 6          Kuwait 101,500
> 7          United Arab Emirates 97,800
> 8          Russia 80,000
> 9          Libya   48,363
> 10        United States  39,230
> 11        Nigeria 37,062
> 12        Kazakhstan     30,000
> 13        China   25,620
> 14        Qatar   25,244
> 15        Brazil   12,999
> 16        Algeria 12,200
> 17        Angola 8,273
> 18        Ecuador          8,273
> 19        Mexico 7,640
> 20        Azerbaijan       7,000
> ---------------------------
> TOTAL 1,609,149 million proven barrels
> The World’s Largest Oil Reserves By Country
> 
> It is expected that by the year 2035, demand will reach 110.3 million barrels a day or 40,259 a year
> 1609149/40259 = 40+/- years left
> 
> The Truth Will Set You Free
> 
> .,,.,.,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,……………………………
> 
> *It is expected that by the year 2035, demand will reach 110.3 million barrels a day.* Companies eventually will start to transition to alternative forms of energy and will be interesting to see what the future holds for renewable energy.
> Which countries have the biggest oil reserves?
> 
> *A 2013 study concluded that peak oil "appears probable before 2030*", and that there was a "significant risk" that it would occur before 2020
> Peak oil - Wikipedia
> 
> _When the price of gasoline rises, people naturally buy less of it; the amount of this reduction being determined by the amount of the price increase and the consumer's elasticity of demand for gasoline. This does not necessarily mean that people will drive less (though it is likely), it may mean that consumers trade in their SUVs for smaller cars, hybrid vehicles, electric cars or cars that run on alternative fuels._
> *Will the World Ever Run Out of Oil?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The experts all agree the peak was around 1999, and we have less than half left now.
> It takes over 100 million years to make new oil.
> It has to be from an old ocean bottom that gets covered over.
> We are never going to be able to harvest most of the oil that is left, because it is too deep down in the ocean and the pressures are to high.
> we have 20 to 50 years worth lett, and that is it.
> Switching to smaller cars won't help much because that will only be going from 20 mpg to 30 mpg.
> And the SUVs that can do that switch are a minority even now.
> Most people already have switched.
> 
> Much of the chart is misleading.
> For example most of the oil and Canada and Venezuela is tar sands, which are expensive and high water use to steam out.  They are not very accessible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This post means you don't even have a clue what peak oil is.
Click to expand...


Wrong.
Peak oil is when we have used more than is left, including all theoretical future discoveries.


----------



## Rigby5

bripat9643 said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> The world is a ball hanging in space. It’s resources are finite. Eventually there will be no more. Because that’s just the way reality works. Sad that you have to explain this. It seems so obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> Resources are virtually infinite, especially if we start harvesting them from space.
Click to expand...


Nope, trying to harvest from space takes way too much energy.
Makes more sense to just tunnel down more on earth.
But the only source of energy ultimately is the sun, and to capture that we have to compete with space for growing food.  So things really are finite.  
Fusion would be nice, but said that over 50 years ago.


----------



## westwall

Rigby5 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot of folks who believe "the end of oil is near" is an old stale myth but at least  remember that there will be a point when this will be true; this you cannot deny.
> Even the illiterate has a right to be ignorant. I know the data below will be difficult for you to understand so please ask a friend to explain it to you.
> 
> It is expected that by the year 2035, demand will reach 110.3 million barrels a day. Companies eventually will start to transition to alternative forms of energy and will be interesting to see what the future holds for renewable energy.
> Which countries have the biggest oil reserves?
> 
> A 2013 study concluded that peak oil "appears probable before 2030", and that there was a "significant risk" that it would occur before 2020
> Peak oil - Wikipedia
> 
> When the price of gasoline rises, people naturally buy less of it; the amount of this reduction being determined by the amount of the price increase and the consumer's elasticity of demand for gasoline. This does not necessarily mean that people will drive less (though it is likely), it may mean that consumers trade in their SUVs for smaller cars, hybrid vehicles, electric cars or cars that run on alternative fuels.
> *Will the World Ever Run Out of Oil?*
> 
> Countries With The Largest Proven Oil Reserves
> Rank   Country           Reserves (millions of barrels), 2017 US EIA
> 1          Venezuela       300,878
> 2          Saudi Arabia   266,455
> 3          Canada           169,709
> 4          Iran      158,400
> 5          Iraq      142,503
> 6          Kuwait 101,500
> 7          United Arab Emirates 97,800
> 8          Russia 80,000
> 9          Libya   48,363
> 10        United States  39,230
> 11        Nigeria 37,062
> 12        Kazakhstan     30,000
> 13        China   25,620
> 14        Qatar   25,244
> 15        Brazil   12,999
> 16        Algeria 12,200
> 17        Angola 8,273
> 18        Ecuador          8,273
> 19        Mexico 7,640
> 20        Azerbaijan       7,000
> ---------------------------
> TOTAL 1,609,149 million proven barrels
> The World’s Largest Oil Reserves By Country
> 
> It is expected that by the year 2035, demand will reach 110.3 million barrels a day or 40,259 a year
> 1609149/40259 = 40+/- years left
> 
> The Truth Will Set You Free
> 
> .,,.,.,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,……………………………
> 
> *It is expected that by the year 2035, demand will reach 110.3 million barrels a day.* Companies eventually will start to transition to alternative forms of energy and will be interesting to see what the future holds for renewable energy.
> Which countries have the biggest oil reserves?
> 
> *A 2013 study concluded that peak oil "appears probable before 2030*", and that there was a "significant risk" that it would occur before 2020
> Peak oil - Wikipedia
> 
> _When the price of gasoline rises, people naturally buy less of it; the amount of this reduction being determined by the amount of the price increase and the consumer's elasticity of demand for gasoline. This does not necessarily mean that people will drive less (though it is likely), it may mean that consumers trade in their SUVs for smaller cars, hybrid vehicles, electric cars or cars that run on alternative fuels._
> *Will the World Ever Run Out of Oil?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The experts all agree the peak was around 1999, and we have less than half left now.
> It takes over 100 million years to make new oil.
> It has to be from an old ocean bottom that gets covered over.
> We are never going to be able to harvest most of the oil that is left, because it is too deep down in the ocean and the pressures are to high.
> we have 20 to 50 years worth lett, and that is it.
> Switching to smaller cars won't help much because that will only be going from 20 mpg to 30 mpg.
> And the SUVs that can do that switch are a minority even now.
> Most people already have switched.
> 
> Much of the chart is misleading.
> For example most of the oil and Canada and Venezuela is tar sands, which are expensive and high water use to steam out.  They are not very accessible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This post means you don't even have a clue what peak oil is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> Peak oil is when we have used more than is left, including all theoretical future discoveries.
Click to expand...







Wrong. Peak oil is reached when the cost of oil begins an inexorable rise because production can no longer meet demand.


----------



## Rigby5

Toddsterpatriot said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even the slightest gesture on the part of the Americans at conservation in any genuine sense of the term would improve the world and reduce energy costs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> US fracking has done more to improve the world than all of the wasteful government spending Obozo threw at the issue.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but fracking is awful.
They knew how to frack over 100 years ago, and they did not do it often because it lets too much natural gas out into the atmosphere and to contaminate the ground water.
Fracking also does not create anything, but just helps use it up faster.


----------



## westwall

Rigby5 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> The world is a ball hanging in space. It’s resources are finite. Eventually there will be no more. Because that’s just the way reality works. Sad that you have to explain this. It seems so obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> Resources are virtually infinite, especially if we start harvesting them from space.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, trying to harvest from space takes way too much energy.
> Makes more sense to just tunnel down more on earth.
> But the only source of energy ultimately is the sun, and to capture that we have to compete with space for growing food.  So things really are finite.
> Fusion would be nice, but said that over 50 years ago.
Click to expand...






You are forgetting geothermal heat


----------



## westwall

Rigby5 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even the slightest gesture on the part of the Americans at conservation in any genuine sense of the term would improve the world and reduce energy costs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> US fracking has done more to improve the world than all of the wasteful government spending Obozo threw at the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but fracking is awful.
> They knew how to frack over 100 years ago, and they did not do it often because it lets too much natural gas out into the atmosphere and to contaminate the ground water.
> Fracking also does not create anything, but just helps use it up faster.
Click to expand...






The only thing you got correct is how long fracking has been around


----------



## Rigby5

westwall said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even the slightest gesture on the part of the Americans at conservation in any genuine sense of the term would improve the world and reduce energy costs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What rock have you been hiding under?  We are ALREADY doing that.  We have lowered our carbon output to below 1995 levels.  How about the rest of the world catch up to us.
Click to expand...


That is not true.
If it were, then we would be in compliance with the Kyoto and Paris Accords, which is not true.
We still have the highest per capita emissions production in the world, and the second highest emissions total.


----------



## westwall

Rigby5 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even the slightest gesture on the part of the Americans at conservation in any genuine sense of the term would improve the world and reduce energy costs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What rock have you been hiding under?  We are ALREADY doing that.  We have lowered our carbon output to below 1995 levels.  How about the rest of the world catch up to us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not true.
> If it were, then we would be in compliance with the Kyoto and Paris Accords, which is not true.
> We still have the highest per capita emissions production in the world, and the second highest emissions total.
Click to expand...







It is absolutely true  You need to read things other than your echo chamber sources


----------



## Rigby5

westwall said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> The world is a ball hanging in space. It’s resources are finite. Eventually there will be no more. Because that’s just the way reality works. Sad that you have to explain this. It seems so obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> Resources are virtually infinite, especially if we start harvesting them from space.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, trying to harvest from space takes way too much energy.
> Makes more sense to just tunnel down more on earth.
> But the only source of energy ultimately is the sun, and to capture that we have to compete with space for growing food.  So things really are finite.
> Fusion would be nice, but said that over 50 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are forgetting geothermal heat
Click to expand...


Three main problems with geothermal.
One is that it is corrosive so has maintenance costs.
Two is that it produces electricity, but we then still need a way to store and transport it.  Which might be hydrogen?
Three is that geothermal cools off the planet core, and when it cools enough, we all die from solar radiation no longer being shielded by the magnetosphere.


----------



## Rigby5

westwall said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even the slightest gesture on the part of the Americans at conservation in any genuine sense of the term would improve the world and reduce energy costs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What rock have you been hiding under?  We are ALREADY doing that.  We have lowered our carbon output to below 1995 levels.  How about the rest of the world catch up to us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not true.
> If it were, then we would be in compliance with the Kyoto and Paris Accords, which is not true.
> We still have the highest per capita emissions production in the world, and the second highest emissions total.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is absolutely true  You need to read things other than your echo chamber sources
Click to expand...


The US has never reduced emissions at all, ever, except small blips from high prices.






And China gets a pass because they have so many more people.
By capita we look even worse.


----------



## Rigby5

westwall said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot of folks who believe "the end of oil is near" is an old stale myth but at least  remember that there will be a point when this will be true; this you cannot deny.
> Even the illiterate has a right to be ignorant. I know the data below will be difficult for you to understand so please ask a friend to explain it to you.
> 
> It is expected that by the year 2035, demand will reach 110.3 million barrels a day. Companies eventually will start to transition to alternative forms of energy and will be interesting to see what the future holds for renewable energy.
> Which countries have the biggest oil reserves?
> 
> A 2013 study concluded that peak oil "appears probable before 2030", and that there was a "significant risk" that it would occur before 2020
> Peak oil - Wikipedia
> 
> When the price of gasoline rises, people naturally buy less of it; the amount of this reduction being determined by the amount of the price increase and the consumer's elasticity of demand for gasoline. This does not necessarily mean that people will drive less (though it is likely), it may mean that consumers trade in their SUVs for smaller cars, hybrid vehicles, electric cars or cars that run on alternative fuels.
> *Will the World Ever Run Out of Oil?*
> 
> Countries With The Largest Proven Oil Reserves
> Rank   Country           Reserves (millions of barrels), 2017 US EIA
> 1          Venezuela       300,878
> 2          Saudi Arabia   266,455
> 3          Canada           169,709
> 4          Iran      158,400
> 5          Iraq      142,503
> 6          Kuwait 101,500
> 7          United Arab Emirates 97,800
> 8          Russia 80,000
> 9          Libya   48,363
> 10        United States  39,230
> 11        Nigeria 37,062
> 12        Kazakhstan     30,000
> 13        China   25,620
> 14        Qatar   25,244
> 15        Brazil   12,999
> 16        Algeria 12,200
> 17        Angola 8,273
> 18        Ecuador          8,273
> 19        Mexico 7,640
> 20        Azerbaijan       7,000
> ---------------------------
> TOTAL 1,609,149 million proven barrels
> The World’s Largest Oil Reserves By Country
> 
> It is expected that by the year 2035, demand will reach 110.3 million barrels a day or 40,259 a year
> 1609149/40259 = 40+/- years left
> 
> The Truth Will Set You Free
> 
> .,,.,.,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,……………………………
> 
> *It is expected that by the year 2035, demand will reach 110.3 million barrels a day.* Companies eventually will start to transition to alternative forms of energy and will be interesting to see what the future holds for renewable energy.
> Which countries have the biggest oil reserves?
> 
> *A 2013 study concluded that peak oil "appears probable before 2030*", and that there was a "significant risk" that it would occur before 2020
> Peak oil - Wikipedia
> 
> _When the price of gasoline rises, people naturally buy less of it; the amount of this reduction being determined by the amount of the price increase and the consumer's elasticity of demand for gasoline. This does not necessarily mean that people will drive less (though it is likely), it may mean that consumers trade in their SUVs for smaller cars, hybrid vehicles, electric cars or cars that run on alternative fuels._
> *Will the World Ever Run Out of Oil?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The experts all agree the peak was around 1999, and we have less than half left now.
> It takes over 100 million years to make new oil.
> It has to be from an old ocean bottom that gets covered over.
> We are never going to be able to harvest most of the oil that is left, because it is too deep down in the ocean and the pressures are to high.
> we have 20 to 50 years worth lett, and that is it.
> Switching to smaller cars won't help much because that will only be going from 20 mpg to 30 mpg.
> And the SUVs that can do that switch are a minority even now.
> Most people already have switched.
> 
> Much of the chart is misleading.
> For example most of the oil and Canada and Venezuela is tar sands, which are expensive and high water use to steam out.  They are not very accessible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This post means you don't even have a clue what peak oil is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> Peak oil is when we have used more than is left, including all theoretical future discoveries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. Peak oil is reached when the cost of oil begins an inexorable rise because production can no longer meet demand.
Click to expand...


That can not be true, because long before reserves are exhausted to the point we can not meet production demands, we will have switched to something else, that will cause oil prices to stabilize or even go down.
Your definition assumes no one is looking ahead.
Here  is the actual definition, and it has nothing to do with costs:

{...
*Peak oil* is the theorized point in time when the maximum rate of extraction of petroleum is reached, after which it is expected to enter terminal decline.[2] As of 2019 peak oil forecasts range from the early 2020s to the 2040s,[3] depending on economics[4] and how governments respond to global warming.[5] It is often confused with oil depletion; however, whereas _depletion_ refers to a period of falling reserves and supply, _peak oil_ refers to the point of maximum production. The concept of peak oil is often credited to geologist M. King Hubbert whose 1956 paper first presented a formal theory.
...}

Most people estimate we are already past peak production.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even the slightest gesture on the part of the Americans at conservation in any genuine sense of the term would improve the world and reduce energy costs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> US fracking has done more to improve the world than all of the wasteful government spending Obozo threw at the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but fracking is awful.
> They knew how to frack over 100 years ago, and they did not do it often because it lets too much natural gas out into the atmosphere and to contaminate the ground water.
> Fracking also does not create anything, but just helps use it up faster.
Click to expand...


*Fracking also does not create anything, but just helps use it up faster. *

Nothing more useless than natural gas you're not using.


----------



## Rigby5

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even the slightest gesture on the part of the Americans at conservation in any genuine sense of the term would improve the world and reduce energy costs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> US fracking has done more to improve the world than all of the wasteful government spending Obozo threw at the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but fracking is awful.
> They knew how to frack over 100 years ago, and they did not do it often because it lets too much natural gas out into the atmosphere and to contaminate the ground water.
> Fracking also does not create anything, but just helps use it up faster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Fracking also does not create anything, but just helps use it up faster. *
> 
> Nothing more useless than natural gas you're not using.
Click to expand...


So you do not care when we run out?
If that how you run your household budget, just spend all your money immediately?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even the slightest gesture on the part of the Americans at conservation in any genuine sense of the term would improve the world and reduce energy costs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> US fracking has done more to improve the world than all of the wasteful government spending Obozo threw at the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but fracking is awful.
> They knew how to frack over 100 years ago, and they did not do it often because it lets too much natural gas out into the atmosphere and to contaminate the ground water.
> Fracking also does not create anything, but just helps use it up faster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Fracking also does not create anything, but just helps use it up faster. *
> 
> Nothing more useless than natural gas you're not using.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you do not care when we run out?
> If that how you run your household budget, just spend all your money immediately?
Click to expand...


*So you do not care when we run out?*

When I need cheap natural gas, I need it now.
What good is it to me still in the ground?

*If that how you run your household budget, just spend all your money immediately?*

Good point, cheap natural gas helps my budget.


----------



## westwall

Rigby5 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> The world is a ball hanging in space. It’s resources are finite. Eventually there will be no more. Because that’s just the way reality works. Sad that you have to explain this. It seems so obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> Resources are virtually infinite, especially if we start harvesting them from space.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, trying to harvest from space takes way too much energy.
> Makes more sense to just tunnel down more on earth.
> But the only source of energy ultimately is the sun, and to capture that we have to compete with space for growing food.  So things really are finite.
> Fusion would be nice, but said that over 50 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are forgetting geothermal heat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Three main problems with geothermal.
> One is that it is corrosive so has maintenance costs.
> Two is that it produces electricity, but we then still need a way to store and transport it.  Which might be hydrogen?
> Three is that geothermal cools off the planet core, and when it cools enough, we all die from solar radiation no longer being shielded by the magnetosphere.
Click to expand...





Everything has maintenance costs. No, geothermal doesn't cool off the core. Geothermal power is tapped thousands of miles away from the core, and, in fact doesn't even touch the mantle.

You are way off in your understanding of how geothermal works.


----------



## westwall

Rigby5 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even the slightest gesture on the part of the Americans at conservation in any genuine sense of the term would improve the world and reduce energy costs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What rock have you been hiding under?  We are ALREADY doing that.  We have lowered our carbon output to below 1995 levels.  How about the rest of the world catch up to us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not true.
> If it were, then we would be in compliance with the Kyoto and Paris Accords, which is not true.
> We still have the highest per capita emissions production in the world, and the second highest emissions total.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is absolutely true  You need to read things other than your echo chamber sources
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US has never reduced emissions at all, ever, except small blips from high prices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And China gets a pass because they have so many more people.
> By capita we look even worse.
Click to expand...





Factually incorrect


----------



## westwall

Rigby5 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot of folks who believe "the end of oil is near" is an old stale myth but at least  remember that there will be a point when this will be true; this you cannot deny.
> Even the illiterate has a right to be ignorant. I know the data below will be difficult for you to understand so please ask a friend to explain it to you.
> 
> It is expected that by the year 2035, demand will reach 110.3 million barrels a day. Companies eventually will start to transition to alternative forms of energy and will be interesting to see what the future holds for renewable energy.
> Which countries have the biggest oil reserves?
> 
> A 2013 study concluded that peak oil "appears probable before 2030", and that there was a "significant risk" that it would occur before 2020
> Peak oil - Wikipedia
> 
> When the price of gasoline rises, people naturally buy less of it; the amount of this reduction being determined by the amount of the price increase and the consumer's elasticity of demand for gasoline. This does not necessarily mean that people will drive less (though it is likely), it may mean that consumers trade in their SUVs for smaller cars, hybrid vehicles, electric cars or cars that run on alternative fuels.
> *Will the World Ever Run Out of Oil?*
> 
> Countries With The Largest Proven Oil Reserves
> Rank   Country           Reserves (millions of barrels), 2017 US EIA
> 1          Venezuela       300,878
> 2          Saudi Arabia   266,455
> 3          Canada           169,709
> 4          Iran      158,400
> 5          Iraq      142,503
> 6          Kuwait 101,500
> 7          United Arab Emirates 97,800
> 8          Russia 80,000
> 9          Libya   48,363
> 10        United States  39,230
> 11        Nigeria 37,062
> 12        Kazakhstan     30,000
> 13        China   25,620
> 14        Qatar   25,244
> 15        Brazil   12,999
> 16        Algeria 12,200
> 17        Angola 8,273
> 18        Ecuador          8,273
> 19        Mexico 7,640
> 20        Azerbaijan       7,000
> ---------------------------
> TOTAL 1,609,149 million proven barrels
> The World’s Largest Oil Reserves By Country
> 
> It is expected that by the year 2035, demand will reach 110.3 million barrels a day or 40,259 a year
> 1609149/40259 = 40+/- years left
> 
> The Truth Will Set You Free
> 
> .,,.,.,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,……………………………
> 
> *It is expected that by the year 2035, demand will reach 110.3 million barrels a day.* Companies eventually will start to transition to alternative forms of energy and will be interesting to see what the future holds for renewable energy.
> Which countries have the biggest oil reserves?
> 
> *A 2013 study concluded that peak oil "appears probable before 2030*", and that there was a "significant risk" that it would occur before 2020
> Peak oil - Wikipedia
> 
> _When the price of gasoline rises, people naturally buy less of it; the amount of this reduction being determined by the amount of the price increase and the consumer's elasticity of demand for gasoline. This does not necessarily mean that people will drive less (though it is likely), it may mean that consumers trade in their SUVs for smaller cars, hybrid vehicles, electric cars or cars that run on alternative fuels._
> *Will the World Ever Run Out of Oil?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The experts all agree the peak was around 1999, and we have less than half left now.
> It takes over 100 million years to make new oil.
> It has to be from an old ocean bottom that gets covered over.
> We are never going to be able to harvest most of the oil that is left, because it is too deep down in the ocean and the pressures are to high.
> we have 20 to 50 years worth lett, and that is it.
> Switching to smaller cars won't help much because that will only be going from 20 mpg to 30 mpg.
> And the SUVs that can do that switch are a minority even now.
> Most people already have switched.
> 
> Much of the chart is misleading.
> For example most of the oil and Canada and Venezuela is tar sands, which are expensive and high water use to steam out.  They are not very accessible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This post means you don't even have a clue what peak oil is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> Peak oil is when we have used more than is left, including all theoretical future discoveries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. Peak oil is reached when the cost of oil begins an inexorable rise because production can no longer meet demand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That can not be true, because long before reserves are exhausted to the point we can not meet production demands, we will have switched to something else, that will cause oil prices to stabilize or even go down.
> Your definition assumes no one is looking ahead.
> Here  is the actual definition, and it has nothing to do with costs:
> 
> {...
> *Peak oil* is the theorized point in time when the maximum rate of extraction of petroleum is reached, after which it is expected to enter terminal decline.[2] As of 2019 peak oil forecasts range from the early 2020s to the 2040s,[3] depending on economics[4] and how governments respond to global warming.[5] It is often confused with oil depletion; however, whereas _depletion_ refers to a period of falling reserves and supply, _peak oil_ refers to the point of maximum production. The concept of peak oil is often credited to geologist M. King Hubbert whose 1956 paper first presented a formal theory.
> ...}
> 
> Most people estimate we are already past peak production.
Click to expand...





Point 2 is what I said.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Rigby5 said:


> The experts all agree the peak was around 1999, and we have less than half left now.
> It takes over 100 million years to make new oil.
> It has to be from an old ocean bottom that gets covered over.
> We are never going to be able to harvest most of the oil that is left, because it is too deep down in the ocean and the pressures are to high.
> we have 20 to 50 years worth lett, and that is it.
> Switching to smaller cars won't help much because that will only be going from 20 mpg to 30 mpg.
> And the SUVs that can do that switch are a minority even now.
> Most people already have switched.
> 
> Much of the chart is misleading.
> For example most of the oil and Canada and Venezuela is tar sands, which are expensive and high water use to steam out. They are not very accessible.



That may have been then; but now people are waking up to reality;.
Life is unfolding as it should
as I see it -
how about you-? *Rigby5*


----------



## watchingfromafar

there4eyeM said:


> Even the slightest gesture on the part of the Americans at conservation in any genuine sense of the term would improve the world and reduce energy costs.



Americans don't import oil. We have all we need right here at home. 
no animosity intended or implied
just stating a fact
-


----------



## watchingfromafar

westwall said:


> You are forgetting geothermal heat


This will always be an energy source for some
p-[


----------

