# energy



## lehr

the whole world drills for oil ---- amerika builds useless 10th. century wind mills


----------



## Wiseacre

And we spend billions on high speed rail that will cost way more than advertised and will never ever be a paying proposition.   And of course the solar panels that are made somewhere else.   But God forbid we should drill more oil wells, or allow existing wells to reopen.


----------



## Mr. H.




----------



## Old Rocks

Wiseacre said:


> And we spend billions on high speed rail that will cost way more than advertised and will never ever be a paying proposition.
> 
> *Well, I guess we will just have to have some Europeans show us how they do it.*
> 
> And of course the solar panels that are made somewhere else.
> 
> *Really?*
> 
> Largest Solar Cell Facility in Oregon | Solar Power - PV Panels
> 
> In October 2008, the largest solar cell facility in North America was opened in Hillsboro, Oregon.  SolarWorld USA now has a plant that will generate 500 megawatts of energy per year by 2011.
> 
> More than $500 million have been invested to allow for cell manufacturing equipment and crystal growing.  These efforts can be attributed in large part to Governor Ted Kulongoski, the Oregon Department of Energy and the city of Hillsboro
> ...........................................................................
> 
> But God forbid we should drill more oil wells, or allow existing wells to reopen.



God forbid someone should tell you the sad truth. We have 3% of the world's reserves of petroleum, and use 24% of the world's production of oil. Now how do you propose to drill out of that fact?


----------



## Old Rocks

lehr said:


> the whole world drills for oil ---- amerika builds useless 10th. century wind mills



Only 40 gw of wind power available. And more every month. Someone seems to like them.

Wind Powering America: U.S. Installed Wind Capacity and Wind Project Locations


----------



## whitehall

Here's a thought, instead of improving on 10th century technology why not try exploiting the oil reserves under our control in the Gulf of Mexico instead of selling them to Russia and Venezuela? Why not create jobs and open a tiny portion of ANWAR to American companies instead of supporting (Soros invested) Brazil oil? Why in the world would an American president tell a foreign oil producer "we want to be your best costomer" while referring to the US Chamber of Commerce as a sinsiter tool of the GOP? I'll answer that. The "greenie" movement is a conglomerate of the burned out hippies, the modern idealistic ignorant yuppies and the political movement dedicated to the destruction of the United States as we know it. Democrats have prevented the US from being independent of foreign oil for decades. The radicals, the ignorant and the hypocrites complain that America is somehow "unfair" in it's energy consumption while they enjoy the benefits of the greatest Country in the world. There is no substitute for fossil fuel and the lefties who tell you that the US needs to be brought down to the level of a 3rd world country are fools and traitors.


----------



## lehr

the world will never run out of oil - as long as we have a molten core - the earth makes oil - oil is made by extreme pressure and extreme heat on plant life - it taked billions of years - but every day someplace under the earth it has reached a billion years - there is no such thing as "peak oil "   - communist demokrats know oil makes amerika strong,,,that is why they refuse to drill for it

" catastrophe "   by  chris ruddy   

" klinton gave 500,000 metric tons of oil to n. korea every year "  p. 71   - he refused to drill for oil in alaska because he said it would take 10 yrs. to get to the lower 48 anyway = communist demokrats will use any excuse to destroy our economy - they want to re-build amerika arounf communism


----------



## Wiseacre

Old Rocks said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we spend billions on high speed rail that will cost way more than advertised and will never ever be a paying proposition.
> 
> *Well, I guess we will just have to have some Europeans show us how they do it.*
> 
> And of course the solar panels that are made somewhere else.
> 
> *Really?*
> 
> Largest Solar Cell Facility in Oregon | Solar Power - PV Panels
> 
> In October 2008, the largest solar cell facility in North America was opened in Hillsboro, Oregon.  SolarWorld USA now has a plant that will generate 500 megawatts of energy per year by 2011.
> 
> More than $500 million have been invested to allow for cell manufacturing equipment and crystal growing.  These efforts can be attributed in large part to Governor Ted Kulongoski, the Oregon Department of Energy and the city of Hillsboro
> ...........................................................................
> 
> But God forbid we should drill more oil wells, or allow existing wells to reopen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God forbid someone should tell you the sad truth. We have 3% of the world's reserves of petroleum, and use 24% of the world's production of oil. Now how do you propose to drill out of that fact?
Click to expand...



First of all, about those high speed rail systems:

High-speed rail is good for society and its good for the environment, but its not a profitable business, said Mr. Barrón of the International Union of Railways. He reckons that only two routes in the world  between Tokyo and Osaka, and between Paris and Lyon, France  have broken even.
Spains High-Speed Rail Offers Guideposts for U.S. - NYTimes.com

These things are money hogs, they take billions to run and maintain, the building costs are staggering, and they require a hell of a lot of power.    Stupid idea for us, I think we'd have to install new tracks for it cuz what we got now won't support high speeds.

Check this out:

Sadly for rail advocates, these claims are largely bogus, says Cox, who believes that rail promoters ignore accounting principles:
In some countries, government payments that would be called subsidies in the United States are called commercial revenues. 
In others, high speed rail operators operate over tracks owned by government infrastructure companies, which are likewise subsidized in some cases. 
Often, previous write-offs are not a part of the profit equation. 
The lack of transparency in accounting practices makes it difficult to make a judgment as to the level of profitability.
Taiwan Today recently characterized the high-speed rail system as "loss-plagued" and noted it was in the process of seeking to restructure its debt.
A principal problem was that less than 90,000 of the 275,000 daily riders projected to use the system bothered to buy tickets. 
The stations aren't full of turnstile-hopping commuters; the Taiwanese were either staying at home or using other forms of transportation.
Projecting more passengers than show up is not unusual in high-speed rail, notes Cox:
The Eurostar service from Paris to London attracts less than one-half of the ridership forecast five years ago and has required a government financial bailout. 
The new high-speed rail system in Korea is carrying little more than one-half the passengers originally projected.

HIGH SPEED RAIL IS AN UNPROFITABLE TRAIN WRECK


BTW, did you know that solar power company (SolarWorld) in Oregon you're so proud of?   You know that company is based in Germany, right?


I propose to increase our oil production and increase our oil shale and natural gas production.   I'm okay with renewable sources of energy, but it's gotta be economically feasible, we can't be subsidizing everything, and we can't afford to be paying higher prices to heat or cool our homes.   And I think nuclear power should still be on the table, if we can have nuclear powered subs why can't we have nuclear powered cities and towns?   The price has gotta be right though, the big spending days are about over.   One way or another.


----------



## whitehall

Windmills are a joke. They had to rig a Cape Cod windmill to run only at a speed that didn't work because the vibration and the hummmmm was driving people crazy. Even at peak efficiency and brand new, windmills are a joke. Solar panels? It would take a football field of solar panels to keep a typical family comfortable. Our socialist president understands the politics behind "alternate" energy. That's why he hired a communist former leader of an arson and looting rampage to be on his "green jobs" panel. Bye the way, where are the "green jobs"?


----------



## JiggsCasey

lehr said:


> the world will never run out of oil - as long as we have a molten core - the earth makes oil - oil is made by extreme pressure and extreme heat on plant life - it taked billions of years - but every day someplace under the earth it has reached a billion years - there is no such thing as "peak oil "   - communist demokrats know oil makes amerika strong,,,that is why they refuse to drill for it



Holy CRAP is this some epic fail.

You know, it was Soviet scientists who first championed the "abiotic" oil theory. Why do you hate Amerika?


----------



## JiggsCasey

whitehall said:


> Windmills are a joke. They had to rig a Cape Cod windmill to run only at a speed that didn't work because the vibration and the hummmmm was driving people crazy.



Link, or GTFO.

I'm intimately knowledgeable about the CapeWind project and the political nonsense surrounding it, so you'd better bring your A game.


----------



## lehr

12 may 2011 - CNN - " because gas is so high in price - fewer people are dying on our hiways " 

our communist media will do anything to make komrade obama look good

if it were bush - our communist media would b accusing bush of working with the oil companies to rip us off = demokrats will always b demokrats


----------



## lehr

Old Rocks said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we spend billions on high speed rail that will cost way more than advertised and will never ever be a paying proposition.
> 
> *Well, I guess we will just have to have some Europeans show us how they do it.*
> 
> And of course the solar panels that are made somewhere else.
> 
> *Really?*
> 
> Largest Solar Cell Facility in Oregon | Solar Power - PV Panels
> 
> In October 2008, the largest solar cell facility in North America was opened in Hillsboro, Oregon.  SolarWorld USA now has a plant that will generate 500 megawatts of energy per year by 2011.
> 
> More than $500 million have been invested to allow for cell manufacturing equipment and crystal growing.  These efforts can be attributed in large part to Governor Ted Kulongoski, the Oregon Department of Energy and the city of Hillsboro
> ...........................................................................
> 
> But God forbid we should drill more oil wells, or allow existing wells to reopen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God forbid someone should tell you the sad truth. We have 3% of the world's reserves of petroleum, and use 24% of the world's production of oil. Now how do you propose to drill out of that fact?
Click to expand...


forget what komrade obama said - i heard that crap when i was in college - that is a half truth - amerika has more oil than all the arab countries combined - and the earth makes oil as we speek - as long as we have a molten core oil will continue to be made - if we do not drill for oil it will become a nucience - oil continues to leach out of the ground and at the bottom of the sea - oil is made from extreme pressure & heat on plant life - earth never stops making oil= oil makes u.s. strong - that is why communist demokrats hate it


----------



## JiggsCasey

lehr said:


> 12 may 2011 - CNN - " because gas is so high in price - fewer people are dying on our hiways "
> 
> our communist media will do anything to make komrade obama look good
> 
> if it were bush - our communist media would b accusing bush of working with the oil companies to rip us off = demokrats will always b demokrats



Horrible...  again, I ask... why do you assign yourself to Soviet science? ... 

The forum is awaiting your "proof" that oil seeps up from the mantle of the Earth. Can't wait.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> I'm intimately knowledgeable about the CapeWind project and the political nonsense surrounding it, so you'd better bring your A game.



Perhaps you should tell the truth, which would lead to this correction of the quote:

"I'm intimate with people who actually know something about the CapeWind project and the political nonsense surrounding it, so you'd better bring your A game otherwise I'll quote those people verbatim and hope it sounds better than my peak oil parroting."


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm intimately knowledgeable about the CapeWind project and the political nonsense surrounding it, so you'd better bring your A game.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should tell the truth, which would lead to this correction of the quote:
> 
> "I'm intimate with people who actually know something about the CapeWind project and the political nonsense surrounding it, so you'd better bring your A game otherwise I'll quote those people verbatim and hope it sounds better than my peak oil parroting."
Click to expand...


LOL... and you don't know dick, so STFU and GTFO


----------



## American Horse

JiggsCasey said:


> lehr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 12 may 2011 - CNN - " because gas is so high in price - fewer people are dying on our hiways "
> 
> our communist media will do anything to make komrade obama look good
> 
> if it were bush - our communist media would b accusing bush of working with the oil companies to rip us off = demokrats will always b demokrats
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horrible...  again, I ask... why do you assign yourself to Soviet science? ...
> 
> The forum is awaiting your "proof" that oil seeps up from the mantle of the Earth. Can't wait.
Click to expand...

Natural Oil Seeps in the Gulf of Mexico 
A NASA Earth Observatory news release from February 3, 2009

"Although accidents and hurricane damage to infrastructure are often to blame for oil spills and the resulting pollution in coastal Gulf of Mexico waters, natural seepage from the ocean floor introduces a significant amount of oil to ocean environments as well. Oil spills are notoriously difficult to identify in natural-color (photo-like) satellite images, especially in the open ocean. Because the ocean surface is already so dark blue in these images, the additional darkening or slight color change that results from a spill is usually imperceptible."

Quote from Geology.com


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm intimately knowledgeable about the CapeWind project and the political nonsense surrounding it, so you'd better bring your A game.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should tell the truth, which would lead to this correction of the quote:
> 
> "I'm intimate with people who actually know something about the CapeWind project and the political nonsense surrounding it, so you'd better bring your A game otherwise I'll quote those people verbatim and hope it sounds better than my peak oil parroting."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL... and you don't know dick, so STFU and GTFO
Click to expand...


Sorry Polly, when I catch peakers in the open it is open season. The dumber the better, as you so aptly have demonstrated. Don't even read your own references, how classic for a church sycophant is that?


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should tell the truth, which would lead to this correction of the quote:
> 
> "I'm intimate with people who actually know something about the CapeWind project and the political nonsense surrounding it, so you'd better bring your A game otherwise I'll quote those people verbatim and hope it sounds better than my peak oil parroting."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL... and you don't know dick, so STFU and GTFO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry Polly, when I catch peakers in the open it is open season. The dumber the better, as you so aptly have demonstrated. Don't even read your own references, how classic for a church sycophant is that?
Click to expand...


What are you ever babbling about? I read everything, including your sorry-ass links. You're reduced to just making up shit at this point. 

You barely read anything, and you certainly don't answer any direct challenges germane to the discussion.  Coward. 

I read your stuff; You don't read mine...   Despite what you tell yourself into the mirror, that doesn't make you the "winner," ... it just makes you a backpeddling jackass.


----------



## Old Rocks

Wiseacre said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we spend billions on high speed rail that will cost way more than advertised and will never ever be a paying proposition.
> 
> *Well, I guess we will just have to have some Europeans show us how they do it.*
> 
> And of course the solar panels that are made somewhere else.
> 
> *Really?*
> 
> Largest Solar Cell Facility in Oregon | Solar Power - PV Panels
> 
> In October 2008, the largest solar cell facility in North America was opened in Hillsboro, Oregon.  SolarWorld USA now has a plant that will generate 500 megawatts of energy per year by 2011.
> 
> More than $500 million have been invested to allow for cell manufacturing equipment and crystal growing.  These efforts can be attributed in large part to Governor Ted Kulongoski, the Oregon Department of Energy and the city of Hillsboro
> ...........................................................................
> 
> But God forbid we should drill more oil wells, or allow existing wells to reopen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God forbid someone should tell you the sad truth. We have 3% of the world's reserves of petroleum, and use 24% of the world's production of oil. Now how do you propose to drill out of that fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, about those high speed rail systems:
> 
> High-speed rail is good for society and its good for the environment, but its not a profitable business, said Mr. Barrón of the International Union of Railways. He reckons that only two routes in the world  between Tokyo and Osaka, and between Paris and Lyon, France  have broken even.
> Spains High-Speed Rail Offers Guideposts for U.S. - NYTimes.com
> 
> These things are money hogs, they take billions to run and maintain, the building costs are staggering, and they require a hell of a lot of power.    Stupid idea for us, I think we'd have to install new tracks for it cuz what we got now won't support high speeds.
> 
> Check this out:
> 
> Sadly for rail advocates, these claims are largely bogus, says Cox, who believes that rail promoters ignore accounting principles:
> In some countries, government payments that would be called subsidies in the United States are called commercial revenues.
> In others, high speed rail operators operate over tracks owned by government infrastructure companies, which are likewise subsidized in some cases.
> Often, previous write-offs are not a part of the profit equation.
> The lack of transparency in accounting practices makes it difficult to make a judgment as to the level of profitability.
> Taiwan Today recently characterized the high-speed rail system as "loss-plagued" and noted it was in the process of seeking to restructure its debt.
> A principal problem was that less than 90,000 of the 275,000 daily riders projected to use the system bothered to buy tickets.
> The stations aren't full of turnstile-hopping commuters; the Taiwanese were either staying at home or using other forms of transportation.
> Projecting more passengers than show up is not unusual in high-speed rail, notes Cox:
> The Eurostar service from Paris to London attracts less than one-half of the ridership forecast five years ago and has required a government financial bailout.
> The new high-speed rail system in Korea is carrying little more than one-half the passengers originally projected.
> 
> HIGH SPEED RAIL IS AN UNPROFITABLE TRAIN WRECK
> 
> 
> BTW, did you know that solar power company (SolarWorld) in Oregon you're so proud of?   You know that company is based in Germany, right?
> 
> 
> I propose to increase our oil production and increase our oil shale and natural gas production.   I'm okay with renewable sources of energy, but it's gotta be economically feasible, we can't be subsidizing everything, and we can't afford to be paying higher prices to heat or cool our homes.   And I think nuclear power should still be on the table, if we can have nuclear powered subs why can't we have nuclear powered cities and towns?   The price has gotta be right though, the big spending days are about over.   One way or another.
Click to expand...


Of course I know that Solar World is based in Germany. However, several other solar companies that are moving into Portland are US based companies. And ReVolt that is establishing it's headquarters here is a Norwegian and Swiss company, intending to make zinc-air EV batteries. And the company that I work for is based in Russia.

Apperantly, you are still living in the '60s. And I remember that time very well. I was in uniform on base when we stopped the Soviet ships off of Cuba. Times have changed. We reached peak oil for this nation in the '70's, whether you like that fact or not. We do not have enough oil to drill our way to independence. Just a fact. 

Getting the kerogen out of oil shale requires far too much energy and water for it to be viable. 

The reason that we cannot have nuclear powered cities and towns is that the consequences of something going wrong are so great. Until we get something like the thorium reactors, that would 'burn' present waste, nobody is going to back nuclear again. Three Mile Island, and the disaster in Japan has taught us a hard and expensive lesson.

Do the present airports in this nation make a profit? Who paid for their construction, and was it paid back with a profit? High speed rail is an economical substitute for much of the air traffic today.


----------



## Old Rocks

American Horse said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lehr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 12 may 2011 - CNN - " because gas is so high in price - fewer people are dying on our hiways "
> 
> our communist media will do anything to make komrade obama look good
> 
> if it were bush - our communist media would b accusing bush of working with the oil companies to rip us off = demokrats will always b demokrats
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horrible...  again, I ask... why do you assign yourself to Soviet science? ...
> 
> The forum is awaiting your "proof" that oil seeps up from the mantle of the Earth. Can't wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural Oil Seeps in the Gulf of Mexico
> A NASA Earth Observatory news release from February 3, 2009
> 
> "Although accidents and hurricane damage to infrastructure are often to blame for oil spills and the resulting pollution in coastal Gulf of Mexico waters, natural seepage from the ocean floor introduces a significant amount of oil to ocean environments as well. Oil spills are notoriously difficult to identify in natural-color (photo-like) satellite images, especially in the open ocean. Because the ocean surface is already so dark blue in these images, the additional darkening or slight color change that results from a spill is usually imperceptible."
> 
> Quote from Geology.com
Click to expand...


So, what you are saying is that since nature pollutes to a certain extent, that gives us license to pollute to an even greater extent?


----------



## American Horse

Old Rocks said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Horrible...  again, I ask... why do you assign yourself to Soviet science? ...
> 
> The forum is awaiting your "proof" that oil seeps up from the mantle of the Earth. Can't wait.
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Oil Seeps in the Gulf of Mexico
> A NASA Earth Observatory news release from February 3, 2009
> 
> "Although accidents and hurricane damage to infrastructure are often to blame for oil spills and the resulting pollution in coastal Gulf of Mexico waters, natural seepage from the ocean floor introduces a significant amount of oil to ocean environments as well. Oil spills are notoriously difficult to identify in natural-color (photo-like) satellite images, especially in the open ocean. Because the ocean surface is already so dark blue in these images, the additional darkening or slight color change that results from a spill is usually imperceptible."
> 
> Quote from Geology.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, what you are saying is that since nature pollutes to a certain extent, that gives us license to pollute to an even greater extent?
Click to expand...


That was not my intent; I was responding to a challenge and a need to set the record straight.

What you are doing is being needlessly petty...


----------



## Old Rocks

The Gold Hypothesis for the formation of oil from methane from the mantle has some basis. However, when the figures are done, the amount is negligable compared to that which is generated from organics formed in the oceans.

And the really big fields, excepting in the Arctic and Antarctic, have all been discovered and are being exploited. Many have already reached their Hubbert peak.


----------



## shintao

lehr said:


> the whole world drills for oil ---- amerika builds useless 10th. century wind mills



Lets drill in your back yard, and stick one of those giant pumps back there clacking away 24/7. Want to drill so fucking bad, well,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,DRILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Lol!


----------



## Old Rocks

whitehall said:


> Windmills are a joke. They had to rig a Cape Cod windmill to run only at a speed that didn't work because the vibration and the hummmmm was driving people crazy. Even at peak efficiency and brand new, windmills are a joke. Solar panels? It would take a football field of solar panels to keep a typical family comfortable. Our socialist president understands the politics behind "alternate" energy. That's why he hired a communist former leader of an arson and looting rampage to be on his "green jobs" panel. Bye the way, where are the "green jobs"?



*Here in Oregon, everywhere. Over 1000 of them in just one plant in Hillsboro alone. And we have several other plants in construciton, or allready producing but being expanded. We also have a couple of battery outfits that have located their research facilities here, and are planning to locate their manufacturing plants here when they have the manufacturing process down for their EV batteries.

And then there are the windmills. We are putting them up faster than we can train technicians to work on them. And the jobs start out at about $19 an hour. When they get the new line into Southeastern Oregon, we will see an even greater number of mills put up. With the additional jobs that come with them.

Here in Oregon, there are thousands of 'Green Jobs'. They are just not available for untrained coach potatoes that spend most of their time spreading idiocy on the internet.*

SolarWorld reaches 1,000 jobs - Oregon Business

SolarWorld's five-year expansion has ended on target, with the company's addition of its 1,000th worker in Hillsboro.

German-based SolarWorld bought its Hillsboro location in 2007, where it now produces silicon crystal, solar wafers, photovoltaic cells and solar panels.

The Hillsboro site is now the largest solar manufacturing plant in the U.S.

"Our goals here were straightforward: to tool up annual production capacity to 500 megawatts at the U.S. sites and hire 1,000 workers in Hillsboro by 2011," said Bob Beisner, managing director and vice president of the U.S. operations, in a statement.


Read more: SolarWorld reaches 1,000 jobs - Oregon Business SolarWorld reaches 1,000 jobs - Oregon Business


----------



## RGR

Old Rocks said:


> And the really big fields, excepting in the Arctic and Antarctic, have all been discovered and are being exploited. Many have already reached their Hubbert peak.



Methinks you doth forget big chunks of Africa. And Russia. 

And only 25% of the worlds oil producing country production profiles can be confused with a "Hubbert peak" versus all the double peaks, triple peaks, peaks followed by fallow periods followed by yet more peaks.


----------



## Mr. H.

shintao said:


> lehr said:
> 
> 
> 
> the whole world drills for oil ---- amerika builds useless 10th. century wind mills
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets drill in your back yard, and stick one of those giant pumps back there clacking away 24/7. Want to drill so fucking bad, well,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,DRILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Lol!
Click to expand...


At an average royalty of 12.5% fuck yeah bring it on. The vast majority of the nearly half-million oil and gas wells in this country are in rural stettings - situated on farmland. The royalty income is a critical supplement especially to the smaller marginally profitable farms.


----------



## konradv

whitehall said:


> Here's a thought, instead of improving on 10th century technology why not try exploiting the oil reserves under our control in the Gulf of Mexico instead of selling them to Russia and Venezuela? Why not create jobs and open a tiny portion of ANWAR to American companies instead of supporting (Soros invested) Brazil oil? Why in the world would an American president tell a foreign oil producer "we want to be your best costomer" while referring to the US Chamber of Commerce as a sinsiter tool of the GOP? I'll answer that. The "greenie" movement is a conglomerate of the burned out hippies, the modern idealistic ignorant yuppies and the political movement dedicated to the destruction of the United States as we know it. Democrats have prevented the US from being independent of foreign oil for decades. The radicals, the ignorant and the hypocrites complain that America is somehow "unfair" in it's energy consumption while they enjoy the benefits of the greatest Country in the world. There is no substitute for fossil fuel and the lefties who tell you that the US needs to be brought down to the level of a 3rd world country are fools and traitors.



19th century technology is hardly the long term answer.  We're never going to be oil-independent, no matter how much we drill.  The answer isn't 20th century technology(nuclear), either.  We need to step into the 21st century and create a program like the Space Race to cut down the estimated 40-50 year timeline predicted for the development of a fusion power system.  For more info go to: 

ITER - the way to new energy   OR

Department of Energy - Fusion


----------



## Old Rocks

Mr. H. said:


> shintao said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lehr said:
> 
> 
> 
> the whole world drills for oil ---- amerika builds useless 10th. century wind mills
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets drill in your back yard, and stick one of those giant pumps back there clacking away 24/7. Want to drill so fucking bad, well,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,DRILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Lol!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At an average royalty of 12.5% fuck yeah bring it on. The vast majority of the nearly half-million oil and gas wells in this country are in rural stettings - situated on farmland. The royalty income is a critical supplement especially to the smaller marginally profitable farms.
Click to expand...


That same arguement is viable for wind turbines. And they don't negatively affect aquifers.


----------



## waltky

Next war to be in the Arctic?...

*'Ice Wars' heating up the Arctic*
_July 15, 2011 -- Tension is building in the Arctic, where countries are vying for valuable natural resources; More oil, natural gas and mineral deposits can be accessed now because of climate change; There have been territorial disputes over the underwater land where these deposits rest; The Arctic is now seeing naval and military activities it hasn't seen since the Cold War_


> On a small, floating piece of ice in the Beaufort Sea, several hundred miles north of Alaska, a group of scientists are documenting what some dub an "Arctic meltdown."  According to climate scientists, the warming of the region is shrinking the polar ice cap at an alarming rate, reducing the permafrost layer and wreaking havoc on polar bears, arctic foxes and other indigenous wildlife in the region.  What is bad for the animals, though, has been good for commerce.
> 
> The recession of the sea ice and the reduction in permafrost -- combined with advances in technology -- have allowed access to oil, mineral and natural gas deposits that were previously trapped in the ice.  The abundance of these valuable resources and the opportunity to exploit them has created a gold rush-like scramble in the high north, with fierce competition to determine which countries have the right to access the riches of the Arctic.
> 
> This competition has brought in its wake a host of naval and military activities that the Arctic hasn't seen since the end of the Cold War.  Now, one of the coldest places on Earth is heating up as nuclear submarines, Aegis-class frigates, strategic bombers and a new generation of icebreakers are resuming operations there.
> 
> *Just how much oil and natural gas is under the Arctic ice?*


----------



## Cimerian

Old Rocks said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> God forbid someone should tell you the sad truth. We have 3% of the world's reserves of petroleum, and use 24% of the world's production of oil. Now how do you propose to drill out of that fact?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, about those high speed rail systems:
> 
> High-speed rail is good for society and its good for the environment, but its not a profitable business, said Mr. Barrón of the International Union of Railways. He reckons that only two routes in the world  between Tokyo and Osaka, and between Paris and Lyon, France  have broken even.
> Spains High-Speed Rail Offers Guideposts for U.S. - NYTimes.com
> 
> These things are money hogs, they take billions to run and maintain, the building costs are staggering, and they require a hell of a lot of power.    Stupid idea for us, I think we'd have to install new tracks for it cuz what we got now won't support high speeds.
> 
> Check this out:
> 
> Sadly for rail advocates, these claims are largely bogus, says Cox, who believes that rail promoters ignore accounting principles:
> In some countries, government payments that would be called subsidies in the United States are called commercial revenues.
> In others, high speed rail operators operate over tracks owned by government infrastructure companies, which are likewise subsidized in some cases.
> Often, previous write-offs are not a part of the profit equation.
> The lack of transparency in accounting practices makes it difficult to make a judgment as to the level of profitability.
> Taiwan Today recently characterized the high-speed rail system as "loss-plagued" and noted it was in the process of seeking to restructure its debt.
> A principal problem was that less than 90,000 of the 275,000 daily riders projected to use the system bothered to buy tickets.
> The stations aren't full of turnstile-hopping commuters; the Taiwanese were either staying at home or using other forms of transportation.
> Projecting more passengers than show up is not unusual in high-speed rail, notes Cox:
> The Eurostar service from Paris to London attracts less than one-half of the ridership forecast five years ago and has required a government financial bailout.
> The new high-speed rail system in Korea is carrying little more than one-half the passengers originally projected.
> 
> HIGH SPEED RAIL IS AN UNPROFITABLE TRAIN WRECK
> 
> 
> BTW, did you know that solar power company (SolarWorld) in Oregon you're so proud of?   You know that company is based in Germany, right?
> 
> 
> I propose to increase our oil production and increase our oil shale and natural gas production.   I'm okay with renewable sources of energy, but it's gotta be economically feasible, we can't be subsidizing everything, and we can't afford to be paying higher prices to heat or cool our homes.   And I think nuclear power should still be on the table, if we can have nuclear powered subs why can't we have nuclear powered cities and towns?   The price has gotta be right though, the big spending days are about over.   One way or another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course I know that Solar World is based in Germany. However, several other solar companies that are moving into Portland are US based companies. And ReVolt that is establishing it's headquarters here is a Norwegian and Swiss company, intending to make zinc-air EV batteries. And the company that I work for is based in Russia.
> 
> Apperantly, you are still living in the '60s. And I remember that time very well. I was in uniform on base when we stopped the Soviet ships off of Cuba. Times have changed. We reached peak oil for this nation in the '70's, whether you like that fact or not. We do not have enough oil to drill our way to independence. Just a fact.
> 
> Getting the kerogen out of oil shale requires far too much energy and water for it to be viable.
> 
> The reason that we cannot have nuclear powered cities and towns is that the consequences of something going wrong are so great. Until we get something like the thorium reactors, that would 'burn' present waste, nobody is going to back nuclear again. Three Mile Island, and the disaster in Japan has taught us a hard and expensive lesson.
> 
> Do the present airports in this nation make a profit? Who paid for their construction, and was it paid back with a profit? High speed rail is an economical substitute for much of the air traffic today.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry but how do you determine we have reached peak oil in the 70s?  If this were true companies would not be spending billions on exploration of new oil wells.  They would not be building exploratory wells.  Sorry but we do not know how much oil Earth has.  We do not know what peak oil even is.  The true reason we do not have more nuclear is the hysteria associated with it.  Three mile island and the Japanese "disaster" are really nothing when put in true perspective.


----------



## RGR

Cimerian said:


> I'm sorry but how do you determine we have reached peak oil in the 70s?



By looking at global oil production data. Global peak was 1979. It declined, and about 10-15 years later, miraculously, it peaked again! This has happened before, in many places, many countries, and it is a well kept secret of the peaker religion. They certainly don't want it exposed to the general public, who then might ask the question, "If oil can peak multiple times, what are the odds of the current peak being overrun by yet another in the future."



			
				Cimerian said:
			
		

> Sorry but we do not know how much oil Earth has.



We have some very good guesses however. The peak religion doesn't want to talk about those either.


----------



## RGR

Old Rocks said:


> The Gold Hypothesis for the formation of oil from methane from the mantle has some basis. However, when the figures are done, the amount is negligable compared to that which is generated from organics formed in the oceans.
> 
> And the really big fields, excepting in the Arctic and Antarctic, have all been discovered and are being exploited. Many have already reached their Hubbert peak.



Hubbert's concept is not one of individual field production, but of large numbers of fields aggregated together. Field production is most certainly not defined by a peak profile but by the design of the infrastructure and speed of development. And aggregations can peak multiple times, therefore any one peak is pretty insignificant. 

And Africa Old Rocks, no one can say that is particularly well explored, or the Laptev sea, and large chunks of onshore Russia are still more than a little mysterious.

Fortunately, most new oil discoveries come from the same old oil discoveries, so we know how many more trillions of recoverable barrels we have without actually having to find anything new.


----------



## konradv

RGR said:


> Cimerian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but how do you determine we have reached peak oil in the 70s?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By looking at global oil production data. Global peak was 1979. It declined, and about 10-15 years later, miraculously, it peaked again! This has happened before, in many places, many countries, and it is a well kept secret of the peaker religion. They certainly don't want it exposed to the general public, who then might ask the question, "If oil can peak multiple times, what are the odds of the current peak being overrun by yet another in the future."
Click to expand...


The odds will become higher and higher as time goes on.  We're living on borrowed time with regards to oil and just because we've had multiple peaks, doesn't mean the last one won't be THE LAST ONE.

Oil is finite and the only real answer to the problem is the development of fusion power.  We need to set a national goal, like the Space Race, to invest in research and shorten the 40-50 year predicted timeline to a working system.  Write your Congresscritters and ask them to invest in our future.  For more info go to:

ITER - the way to new energy  OR

Department of Energy - Fusion


----------



## RGR

konradv said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cimerian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but how do you determine we have reached peak oil in the 70s?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By looking at global oil production data. Global peak was 1979. It declined, and about 10-15 years later, miraculously, it peaked again!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The odds will become higher and higher as time goes on.  We're living on borrowed time with regards to oil and just because we've had multiple peaks, doesn't mean the last one won't be THE LAST ONE.
Click to expand...


Ultimately you are correct of course. Infinite oil growth won't work in a finite oil environment. Unfortunately, people were predicting the end of oil prior to your grandparents birth, and recycling it every generation or so. Once you learn this, it puts all these claims of running out in a different perspective. 

The only real answer is to collect the best people, let them study the problem, and offer up the best estimates. Certainly the religious peak oil twerps don't qualify in this regard. They claim all peaks as though they are THE peak, and move on to the next every time they are proven wrong.


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> Ultimately you are correct of course. Infinite oil growth won't work in a finite oil environment. Unfortunately, people were predicting the end of oil prior to your grandparents birth, and recycling it every generation or so. Once you learn this, it puts all these claims of running out in a different perspective.
> 
> The only real answer is to collect the best people, let them study the problem, and offer up the best estimates. Certainly the religious peak oil twerps don't qualify in this regard. They claim all peaks as though they are THE peak, and move on to the next every time they are proven wrong.



Again, you perpetual liar, barely anyone claimed peak would arrive in the late 70s. The "Limits to Growth" report back then -- if you actually read it rather than take fossil fuel industry talking points as gospel -- pointed to the decade that just passed as the time when peak would hit. Just as Hubbert predicted (always 40 years after peak discovery), and just as it DID hit. Conventional crude production has flat-lined for 6-7 years now. The implosion of world credit markets in the wake of that reality was always inevitable. (oh, but wait... you're not an economist)

The best possible people HAVE studied it, and their unanimous conclusion is that peak is here. That includes a number of entities far smarter than goofy, smarmy you (including our own military brass), and a number of entities who are completely unrelated to one another and have no agenda to forecast such a dire scenario.

If you could name a new discovery of proven, recoverable conventional crude in excess of 30 billion barrels anywhere on God's green Earth the past 30 years, have at it. You seem to have slinked from that challenge some dozen times now since you started your internet trolling campaign.

No one that I know claimed peak would hit all those decades ago. Because everyone I know considers DISCOVERY rates into the equation. Period. They were still discovering massive new oil fields back then, but they're simply not today. Your retarded response to that fact? "Existing fields are magically filling back up!!!!"

So attributing some "chicken little" syndrome to misinformed people back then does not translate to us. Try try as you might. Again, we have a glacier of evidence on our side, from socio-economic to geological to academic. ...   You have... shale gas claims.


----------



## uscitizen

lehr said:


> the whole world drills for oil ---- amerika builds useless 10th. century wind mills



wind is forever, oil is not.

And we are drilling for oil as well.
do not believe all the lies you hear from the right wingnutz.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> Again, you perpetual liar, barely anyone claimed peak would arrive in the late 70s.



Jimmy declared we were running out in the late 70's. Much more severe than your nonsense religious beliefs in a peak here, or there, or whatever the newest interpretation of your religion is...plateau?



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> If you could name a new discovery of proven, recoverable conventional crude in excess of 30 billion barrels anywhere on God's green Earth the past 30 years, have at it.



Only an idiot who doesn't know where the new oil keeps coming from, doesn't know what discovery process modeling is, and is unaware of the works of Arps and Roberts would make a statement this ridiculous. This doesn't even sound like a parroting of yours, more like a make believe. Good for you! Thinking for yourself, even if it consists of a statement this ignorant, is a sign of improvement!



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> No one that I know claimed peak would hit all those decades ago.



Your ignorance of the geoscience professionals who were doing it before you were born is not in dispute. Neither is your ignorance of the history of your own religion.


----------



## TruthSeeker56

Old Rocks said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we spend billions on high speed rail that will cost way more than advertised and will never ever be a paying proposition.
> 
> *Well, I guess we will just have to have some Europeans show us how they do it.*
> 
> And of course the solar panels that are made somewhere else.
> 
> *Really?*
> 
> Largest Solar Cell Facility in Oregon | Solar Power - PV Panels
> 
> In October 2008, the largest solar cell facility in North America was opened in Hillsboro, Oregon.  SolarWorld USA now has a plant that will generate 500 megawatts of energy per year by 2011.
> 
> More than $500 million have been invested to allow for cell manufacturing equipment and crystal growing.  These efforts can be attributed in large part to Governor Ted Kulongoski, the Oregon Department of Energy and the city of Hillsboro
> ...........................................................................
> 
> But God forbid we should drill more oil wells, or allow existing wells to reopen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God forbid someone should tell you the sad truth. We have 3% of the world's reserves of petroleum, and use 24% of the world's production of oil. Now how do you propose to drill out of that fact?
Click to expand...


Really?  Are you SURE about that?  Read this and weep:

Proven oil reserves are not a measure of future supply of world petroleum. It is a well known fallacy in the petroleum industry to treat them in this way, and it has had serious political consequences.


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> Only an idiot who doesn't know where the new oil keeps coming from, doesn't know what discovery process modeling is, and is unaware of the works of Arps and Roberts would make a statement this ridiculous. This doesn't even sound like a parroting of yours, more like a make believe. Good for you! Thinking for yourself, even if it consists of a statement this ignorant, is a sign of improvement!



LOL... that's a terribly pretentious way of admitting you can't allude to a single find.

Global discoveries are not keeping up with consumption. Haven't for quite some time now. Just admit you were wrong, and STFU. 

Either that, or explain how Jeremy Gilbert et al are somehow misleading us. For what purpose?


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> LOL... that's a terribly pretentious way of admitting you can't allude to a single find.



I didn't say I couldn't list the information requested, only that an ignoramus wouldn't already know the answer. Like you.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Global discoveries are not keeping up with consumption. Haven't for quite some time now. Just admit you were wrong, and STFU.



In 1980 we had some 600 billion barrels in oil reserves. Sometime during the last decade we had used all of that 600 billion barrels. Except now we have some 1400 billion barrels in reserves. Of course we have found more than we consumed you halfwit. Otherwise I couldn't fill up my Hummer down at the corner gas station because there wouldn't be any crude to distill it from.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Either that, or explain how Jeremy Gilbert et al are somehow misleading us. For what purpose?



Your inability to differentiate real information from religious propaganda is not my problem.  I recommend evolving to something higher up the intelligence food chain than a parrot. Let us know how it goes.


----------



## Mr. H.

Only idiots dismiss marginal production or marginal discoveries. 

The notion of "peak" anything is an abysmal exercise, a defeatist attitued reserved for losers. 

It's in our human nature to make, to produce, and to discover - no matter the so-called trivial contribution. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one idiot.


----------



## RGR

Mr. H. said:


> Only idiots dismiss marginal production or marginal discoveries.



Stop talking about Jiggsy The Parrot that way! We should not discriminate against him because of technical incompetence given to him by his religion.



			
				Mr. H said:
			
		

> The notion of "peak" anything is an abysmal exercise, a defeatist attitued reserved for losers.



Now hold on! Jiggsy may be gullible, and dumb as a stump (which made him ripe for the picking among the peaker oiler recruiters), but he might not be a loser. Certainly he hasn't shown us anything intellectually to convince us otherwise, but maybe he is sandbagging us by just appearing to be a know nothing windbag.



			
				Mr. H. said:
			
		

> It's in our human nature to make, to produce, and to discover - no matter the so-called trivial contribution. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one idiot.



True. Or one parrot.


----------



## Douger

lehr said:


> the whole world drills for oil ---- amerika builds useless 10th. century wind mills


The world drills for oil to sell to you and the Chinese. The smart countries do solar, wind, geo and hydro as their energy so they can rape you assholes on the petroleum.


----------



## editec

JiggsCasey said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Windmills are a joke. They had to rig a Cape Cod windmill to run only at a speed that didn't work because the vibration and the hummmmm was driving people crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link, or GTFO.
> 
> I'm intimately knowledgeable about the CapeWind project and the political nonsense surrounding it, so you'd better bring your A game.
Click to expand...

 
Good.

I'd like to hear your take on that project, then, JIggs

We have a similar project on the drawing board for the gulf of Maine, and frankly I have my doubts about the economic viability of it.

What do you know that we ought to know, amigo?


----------



## Mr. H.

Energy is groovy.


----------



## RGR

editec said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm intimately knowledgeable about the CapeWind project and the political nonsense surrounding it, so you'd better bring your A game.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good.
> 
> I'd like to hear your take on that project, then, JIggs
> 
> We have a similar project on the drawing board for the gulf of Maine, and frankly I have my doubts about the economic viability of it.
> 
> What do you know that we ought to know, amigo?
Click to expand...


Oh come on, you are just baiting the poor parrot! Now he has to go off and find some reports, pretend like he read them, hope that they are on topic, and then will endlessly cut and paste their authors or organization's names in the hope that no one will actually hunt them up, read one, and realize that he is indeed a parrot! AGAIN!


----------



## flacaltenn

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately you are correct of course. Infinite oil growth won't work in a finite oil environment. Unfortunately, people were predicting the end of oil prior to your grandparents birth, and recycling it every generation or so. Once you learn this, it puts all these claims of running out in a different perspective.
> 
> The only real answer is to collect the best people, let them study the problem, and offer up the best estimates. Certainly the religious peak oil twerps don't qualify in this regard. They claim all peaks as though they are THE peak, and move on to the next every time they are proven wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you perpetual liar, barely anyone claimed peak would arrive in the late 70s. The "Limits to Growth" report back then -- if you actually read it rather than take fossil fuel industry talking points as gospel -- pointed to the decade that just passed as the time when peak would hit. Just as Hubbert predicted (always 40 years after peak discovery), and just as it DID hit. Conventional crude production has flat-lined for 6-7 years now. The implosion of world credit markets in the wake of that reality was always inevitable. (oh, but wait... you're not an economist)
> 
> The best possible people HAVE studied it, and their unanimous conclusion is that peak is here. That includes a number of entities far smarter than goofy, smarmy you (including our own military brass), and a number of entities who are completely unrelated to one another and have no agenda to forecast such a dire scenario.
> 
> *If you could name a new discovery of proven, recoverable conventional crude in excess of 30 billion barrels anywhere on God's green Earth the past 30 years, have at it. *You seem to have slinked from that challenge some dozen times now since you started your internet trolling campaign.
> 
> No one that I know claimed peak would hit all those decades ago. Because everyone I know considers DISCOVERY rates into the equation. Period. They were still discovering massive new oil fields back then, but they're simply not today. Your retarded response to that fact? "Existing fields are magically filling back up!!!!"
> 
> So attributing some "chicken little" syndrome to misinformed people back then does not translate to us. Try try as you might. Again, we have a glacier of evidence on our side, from socio-economic to geological to academic. ...   You have... shale gas claims.
Click to expand...



Sure Jiggs -- you ask, I provide. And this is just ONE company. The same FOREIGN company that both China and the Obama Administration are attempting to shower with nearly free loans.



> In November 2007, Petrobras announced a discovery of a major new oil field off the coast of Rio de Janeiro. *The Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin had an estimated reserve of 5 billion to 8 billion barrels*. The figure would put Tupi as the world's largest oil reserve since the discovery of Kashagan in Kazakhstan in 2000. The country's reserves would increase by 62 per cent, and Tupi's reserve would be on par with Norway&#8217;s 8.5 billion barrels of proven oil reserves .[31]
> The Financial Times listed Petrobras as one of the world's 50 largest companies in 2007.[32]
> On January 21, 2008, Petrobras announced the discovery of Jupiter, a huge oil field which *could equal the Tupi oil field*. It is located 37 km (23 mi) from Tupi, 5,100 m (16,730 ft) below the Atlantic Ocean, 290 km (180 mi) from Rio de Janeiro.[33]
> On April 14, 2008,* a second massive oil field was announced in the same region as the Tupi oil field with reserves estimated at 33 billion barrels of oil*.[34]
> On May 21, 2008, Petrobras announced the discovery of a *third megafield*, located on the coast of the State of São Paulo.



Part of the reason for the confusion over reserves is that this is considered proprietary information. Sometimes the company share everything under the kilt, sometimes they don't. 

But anyway -- There is always confusion in these threads about "energy independence" rather than "oil independence" . And I think that subtle but important diff is propagated on purpose to extend the confusion.. *Oil has VIRTUALLY NOTHING to do (today) with electrical generation. Natural GAS does -- but oil doesn't. *Therefore with our "today" paradigm  -  solar, wind, and any other "alternative" choices do NOTHING for "oil independence".. 

Now if you make the transistion to electric vehicles and spend the neccessary money for infrastructure upgrade and figure out how to utilize the spikey not so reliable flow from wind and solar --- THEN -- you make a dent using those tech. as peaker sources for charging vehicles and make a dent in "oil independence"

Right now -- the regulations that REQUIRE utilities to PREFER taking wind power (when it's available) over other baseline generation sources is actually DELAYING the neccessary engineering and development to properly integrate them into the grid. 

I also doubt that a technology like wind that's absent for days at time is TRUELY gonna put a dent in the "oil independence" EVEN IF WE MADE that investment. What the Danish have done for instance is install massive electrical boilers to scavenge the extremely flaky and peaky wind electricity and "burn off" those peaks to preheat the water. So much expense and inefficiency in that method (plus the need to back-up the complete grid for large segments in time) are gonna limit the contributions by wind and solar as peaker sources to about 20%. 
That's nnot a figure out of a personal orifice --- but based on analysis of the variability of sources and what the actual grid demand curves look liike..


----------



## JiggsCasey

flacaltenn said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately you are correct of course. Infinite oil growth won't work in a finite oil environment. Unfortunately, people were predicting the end of oil prior to your grandparents birth, and recycling it every generation or so. Once you learn this, it puts all these claims of running out in a different perspective.
> 
> The only real answer is to collect the best people, let them study the problem, and offer up the best estimates. Certainly the religious peak oil twerps don't qualify in this regard. They claim all peaks as though they are THE peak, and move on to the next every time they are proven wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you perpetual liar, barely anyone claimed peak would arrive in the late 70s. The "Limits to Growth" report back then -- if you actually read it rather than take fossil fuel industry talking points as gospel -- pointed to the decade that just passed as the time when peak would hit. Just as Hubbert predicted (always 40 years after peak discovery), and just as it DID hit. Conventional crude production has flat-lined for 6-7 years now. The implosion of world credit markets in the wake of that reality was always inevitable. (oh, but wait... you're not an economist)
> 
> The best possible people HAVE studied it, and their unanimous conclusion is that peak is here. That includes a number of entities far smarter than goofy, smarmy you (including our own military brass), and a number of entities who are completely unrelated to one another and have no agenda to forecast such a dire scenario.
> 
> *If you could name a new discovery of proven, recoverable conventional crude in excess of 30 billion barrels anywhere on God's green Earth the past 30 years, have at it. *You seem to have slinked from that challenge some dozen times now since you started your internet trolling campaign.
> 
> No one that I know claimed peak would hit all those decades ago. Because everyone I know considers DISCOVERY rates into the equation. Period. They were still discovering massive new oil fields back then, but they're simply not today. Your retarded response to that fact? "Existing fields are magically filling back up!!!!"
> 
> So attributing some "chicken little" syndrome to misinformed people back then does not translate to us. Try try as you might. Again, we have a glacier of evidence on our side, from socio-economic to geological to academic. ...   You have... shale gas claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Jiggs -- you ask, I provide. And this is just ONE company. The same FOREIGN company that both China and the Obama Administration are attempting to shower with nearly free loans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In November 2007, Petrobras announced a discovery of a major new oil field off the coast of Rio de Janeiro. *The Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin had an estimated reserve of 5 billion to 8 billion barrels*. The figure would put Tupi as the world's largest oil reserve since the discovery of Kashagan in Kazakhstan in 2000. The country's reserves would increase by 62 per cent, and Tupi's reserve would be on par with Norway&#8217;s 8.5 billion barrels of proven oil reserves .[31]
> The Financial Times listed Petrobras as one of the world's 50 largest companies in 2007.[32]
> On January 21, 2008, Petrobras announced the discovery of Jupiter, a huge oil field which *could equal the Tupi oil field*. It is located 37 km (23 mi) from Tupi, 5,100 m (16,730 ft) below the Atlantic Ocean, 290 km (180 mi) from Rio de Janeiro.[33]
> On April 14, 2008,* a second massive oil field was announced in the same region as the Tupi oil field with reserves estimated at 33 billion barrels of oil*.[34]
> On May 21, 2008, Petrobras announced the discovery of a *third megafield*, located on the coast of the State of São Paulo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Part of the reason for the confusion over reserves is that this is considered proprietary information. Sometimes the company share everything under the kilt, sometimes they don't.
> 
> But anyway -- There is always confusion in these threads about "energy independence" rather than "oil independence" . And I think that subtle but important diff is propagated on purpose to extend the confusion.. *Oil has VIRTUALLY NOTHING to do (today) with electrical generation. Natural GAS does -- but oil doesn't. *Therefore with our "today" paradigm  -  solar, wind, and any other "alternative" choices do NOTHING for "oil independence"..
> 
> Now if you make the transistion to electric vehicles and spend the neccessary money for infrastructure upgrade and figure out how to utilize the spikey not so reliable flow from wind and solar --- THEN -- you make a dent using those tech. as peaker sources for charging vehicles and make a dent in "oil independence"
> 
> Right now -- the regulations that REQUIRE utilities to PREFER taking wind power (when it's available) over other baseline generation sources is actually DELAYING the neccessary engineering and development to properly integrate them into the grid.
> 
> I also doubt that a technology like wind that's absent for days at time is TRUELY gonna put a dent in the "oil independence" EVEN IF WE MADE that investment. What the Danish have done for instance is install massive electrical boilers to scavenge the extremely flaky and peaky wind electricity and "burn off" those peaks to preheat the water. So much expense and inefficiency in that method (plus the need to back-up the complete grid for large segments in time) are gonna limit the contributions by wind and solar as peaker sources to about 20%.
> That's nnot a figure out of a personal orifice --- but based on analysis of the variability of sources and what the actual grid demand curves look liike..
Click to expand...


Look at what I asked for, and then remember what you provided.

"Estimated reserves" are not proven recoverable reserves. Even the resident snake oil salesman - RGR - can tell you that. Nevermind that the entire region you're alluding to is deep water fields that are enormously difficult (thus, expensive) to extract from.

Even if it contains all the oil the industry "estimates," it's not nearly enough for what this dying global economic paradigm needs to sustain itself.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> Even if it contains all the oil the industry "estimates," it's not nearly enough for what this dying global economic paradigm needs to sustain itself.



Dying? So a correction in the stock market got you nervous Jiggsy? Or are you surprised that a double dip recession is a possibility? Read a history book, we had a double dipper after the global peak oil in 1979 as well.


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if it contains all the oil the industry "estimates," it's not nearly enough for what this dying global economic paradigm needs to sustain itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dying? So a correction in the stock market got you nervous Jiggsy?
Click to expand...


You think this is all just a mere correction? That's a good indicator of how far out of reality you are on this topic, despite a glacier's worth of evidence pointing at systemic market failure very soon.



RGR said:


> Or are you surprised that a double dip recession is a possibility? Read a history book, we had a double dipper after the global peak oil in 1979 as well.



Now there's some irony. I'm not only unsurprised, I predicted it was imminent beginning in 2006 - you know, when conventional oil production had clearly flatlined, just at the time Limits to Growth said it would 32 years earlier.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> "Estimated reserves" are not proven recoverable reserves.



You have already established you don't know the definition of either, making it difficult to believe anything coming from your keyboard on the topic.

Don't you have a revival meeting of some sort to attend, with the accompanying hymn singing and whatnot to boost your self esteem after getting caught in repeating the same nonsense here?



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Even the resident snake oil salesman - RGR - can tell you that.



Of course I can tell them that, I was doing SEC reserves and guiding them through IRS audits before your mommy let you borrow her 'puter for the first time to attend online peak oil religious propaganda distribution classes. 



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Even if it contains all the oil the industry "estimates," it's not nearly enough for what this dying global economic paradigm needs to sustain itself.



Can you explain why this statement of yours is any different from Jimmy Carters in 1977 when he declared the world would be running out of oil by the late 80's? It gets sort of tiresome to hear the same crap over and over again, maybe your entire congregation is full of parrots?


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Estimated reserves" are not proven recoverable reserves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have already established you don't know the definition of either, making it difficult to believe anything coming from your keyboard on the topic.
> 
> Don't you have a revival meeting of some sort to attend, with the accompanying hymn singing and whatnot to boost your self esteem after getting caught in repeating the same nonsense here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even the resident snake oil salesman - RGR - can tell you that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course I can tell them that, I was doing SEC reserves and guiding them through IRS audits before your mommy let you borrow her 'puter for the first time to attend online peak oil religious propaganda distribution classes.
Click to expand...


LOL!!!! when all else fails, appeal to unfalsifiable claim!



RGR said:


> Can you explain why this statement of yours is any different from Jimmy Carters in 1977 when he declared the world would be running out of oil by the late 80's? It gets sort of tiresome to hear the same crap over and over again, maybe your entire congregation is full of parrots?



I don't have to follow your straw man creation. I know that untucks your shirt, but too bad, loser.

For the 15th time: How are the men in this video lying or wrong? Perhaps at some point you'll grow some balls and attempt to explain what they apparently miss:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZp-OxZuflE]Acknowledging Peak Oil, featuring Sadad al-Husseini - YouTube[/ame]


if you still can't, do yourself a favor and STFU and GTFO


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> For the 15th time: How are the men in this video lying or wrong? Perhaps at some point you'll grow some balls and attempt to explain what they apparently miss:



Why would I watch a utube video which you probably haven't watched, and if you did, you didn't understand any better than you did the Hirsch report? 

Tell you what, pick a quote from a specific time frame inside those videos, tell us the quote and time it is said (proving your parroting skills, which is beyond dispute, but verifying you actually watched these things) and then tell us why that particular quote matters. 

Just one quote, because certainly we wouldn't want to confuse you by requiring you to walk and chew gum at the same time.


----------



## waltky

Uncle Ferd workin' on a song called Energy...

... he say it gonna sound like Jon Meyer's Gravity...

... onlyst it gonna have different words...

... `bout energy.

Granny says he can sing it to his fat g/f's.


----------



## flacaltenn

JiggsCasey said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you perpetual liar, barely anyone claimed peak would arrive in the late 70s. The "Limits to Growth" report back then -- if you actually read it rather than take fossil fuel industry talking points as gospel -- pointed to the decade that just passed as the time when peak would hit. Just as Hubbert predicted (always 40 years after peak discovery), and just as it DID hit. Conventional crude production has flat-lined for 6-7 years now. The implosion of world credit markets in the wake of that reality was always inevitable. (oh, but wait... you're not an economist)
> 
> The best possible people HAVE studied it, and their unanimous conclusion is that peak is here. That includes a number of entities far smarter than goofy, smarmy you (including our own military brass), and a number of entities who are completely unrelated to one another and have no agenda to forecast such a dire scenario.
> 
> *If you could name a new discovery of proven, recoverable conventional crude in excess of 30 billion barrels anywhere on God's green Earth the past 30 years, have at it. *You seem to have slinked from that challenge some dozen times now since you started your internet trolling campaign.
> 
> No one that I know claimed peak would hit all those decades ago. Because everyone I know considers DISCOVERY rates into the equation. Period. They were still discovering massive new oil fields back then, but they're simply not today. Your retarded response to that fact? "Existing fields are magically filling back up!!!!"
> 
> So attributing some "chicken little" syndrome to misinformed people back then does not translate to us. Try try as you might. Again, we have a glacier of evidence on our side, from socio-economic to geological to academic. ...   You have... shale gas claims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Jiggs -- you ask, I provide. And this is just ONE company. The same FOREIGN company that both China and the Obama Administration are attempting to shower with nearly free loans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In November 2007, Petrobras announced a discovery of a major new oil field off the coast of Rio de Janeiro. *The Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin had an estimated reserve of 5 billion to 8 billion barrels*. The figure would put Tupi as the world's largest oil reserve since the discovery of Kashagan in Kazakhstan in 2000. The country's reserves would increase by 62 per cent, and Tupi's reserve would be on par with Norways 8.5 billion barrels of proven oil reserves .[31]
> The Financial Times listed Petrobras as one of the world's 50 largest companies in 2007.[32]
> On January 21, 2008, Petrobras announced the discovery of Jupiter, a huge oil field which *could equal the Tupi oil field*. It is located 37 km (23 mi) from Tupi, 5,100 m (16,730 ft) below the Atlantic Ocean, 290 km (180 mi) from Rio de Janeiro.[33]
> On April 14, 2008,* a second massive oil field was announced in the same region as the Tupi oil field with reserves estimated at 33 billion barrels of oil*.[34]
> On May 21, 2008, Petrobras announced the discovery of a *third megafield*, located on the coast of the State of São Paulo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Part of the reason for the confusion over reserves is that this is considered proprietary information. Sometimes the company share everything under the kilt, sometimes they don't.
> 
> But anyway -- There is always confusion in these threads about "energy independence" rather than "oil independence" . And I think that subtle but important diff is propagated on purpose to extend the confusion.. *Oil has VIRTUALLY NOTHING to do (today) with electrical generation. Natural GAS does -- but oil doesn't. *Therefore with our "today" paradigm  -  solar, wind, and any other "alternative" choices do NOTHING for "oil independence"..
> 
> Now if you make the transistion to electric vehicles and spend the neccessary money for infrastructure upgrade and figure out how to utilize the spikey not so reliable flow from wind and solar --- THEN -- you make a dent using those tech. as peaker sources for charging vehicles and make a dent in "oil independence"
> 
> Right now -- the regulations that REQUIRE utilities to PREFER taking wind power (when it's available) over other baseline generation sources is actually DELAYING the neccessary engineering and development to properly integrate them into the grid.
> 
> I also doubt that a technology like wind that's absent for days at time is TRUELY gonna put a dent in the "oil independence" EVEN IF WE MADE that investment. What the Danish have done for instance is install massive electrical boilers to scavenge the extremely flaky and peaky wind electricity and "burn off" those peaks to preheat the water. So much expense and inefficiency in that method (plus the need to back-up the complete grid for large segments in time) are gonna limit the contributions by wind and solar as peaker sources to about 20%.
> That's nnot a figure out of a personal orifice --- but based on analysis of the variability of sources and what the actual grid demand curves look liike..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at what I asked for, and then remember what you provided.
> 
> "Estimated reserves" are not proven recoverable reserves. Even the resident snake oil salesman - RGR - can tell you that. Nevermind that the entire region you're alluding to is deep water fields that are enormously difficult (thus, expensive) to extract from.
> 
> Even if it contains all the oil the industry "estimates," it's not nearly enough for what this dying global economic paradigm needs to sustain itself.
Click to expand...


Well that's a farce then Jiggs.. Because to get to "PROVEN" you pretty much need to tap a new field for YEARS to get from "estimated" to "proven". In which case, the only thing that REALLY matters is how often you're rolling the dice to tap new fields -- doesn't it? 

Or is your "PROVEN" only when you've tapped the field for 30 years? If that's the definition, a field has only been proven when it's virtually tapped out. No wonder you're such a pessimist.


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the 15th time: How are the men in this video lying or wrong? Perhaps at some point you'll grow some balls and attempt to explain what they apparently miss:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I watch a utube video which you probably haven't watched, and if you did, you didn't understand any better than you did the Hirsch report?
> 
> Tell you what, pick a quote from a specific time frame inside those videos, tell us the quote and time it is said (proving your parroting skills, which is beyond dispute, but verifying you actually watched these things) and then tell us why that particular quote matters.
> 
> Just one quote, because certainly we wouldn't want to confuse you by requiring you to walk and chew gum at the same time.
Click to expand...


LOL!!!!!!!!!!

Translation: _"Well Jiggsy, ... For all my bluster on here, and the time I waste with my incessant trolling in your wake, I can't be bothered to watch either 7-minute video. That might stick a fork in my rapidly dying, 'nothing-to-see-here' argument that already holds no water."_

So on top of being a self-described "arrogant prick," you're also an unrivaled coward. It's probably a good thing you engage in self-preservation like that and shield yourself from those very-easy-to-understand and unmistakable assertions in those videos. Afterall, those are men WAY farther up the energy production hierarchy chain who are rather succinctly putting your retarded premise on its ear.

White flag accepted, then, little free market Texan. Run along now.

But, just for completeness, here's a guy who undoubtedly knows far more than you about global flow rates in the video you're too chicken-shit to actually watch:

*Interview with Sadad al Husseini&#8212;&#8220;The Facts Are There&#8221;*
_by Dave Bowden and Steve Andrews
__This interview was filmed in London by ASPO-USA&#8217;s Dave Bowden, with Steve Andrews along on his own time and dime to ask some questions_.

_*Sadad:* I&#8217;m a geologist by training and a reservoir engineer&#8212;production engineer&#8212;by actual work experience. I started with Aramco back in 1970 and retired in 2004. Most of my time was spent with exploration and production activities but also in project management. I&#8217;ve carried on after that as a consultant.

*Question:* Assume for the moment that declines in demand have flattened and that we resume modest growth in demand in a year or so. Are there adequate new oil projects in the pipeline to meet rising demand for a few more years?

*Sadad:* I&#8217;ve been tracking the number of projects, globally, for a long time both in the Middle East and elsewhere&#8212;Russia, Brazil, west coast of Africa, and others. A lot of this information is in the public domain, so there is no mystery there. The International Energy Agency recently reported on the same numbers.* The bottom line is that there are not enough projects. There is not enough new capacity coming on line, within say the next five to six years, to make up for global declines. And that&#8217;s assuming a very moderate level of declines&#8212;6% to 6.5% for non-OPEC, perhaps a 3.5% to 4% decline rate for OPEC.*

Even at these modest decline rates, we are basically going to see a shortage of capacity within two to three years. We&#8217;re being lulled by this current excess capacity, which has more to do with lower demand than anything to do with supply. So we do have a problem in the near term. In the longer term it&#8217;s even worse because in the longer term the lead time to discover, develop and put on line production runs into 10 years. And there isn&#8217;t enough being done in the long term as well. So it&#8217;s both a short and a long-term problem._​


----------



## RGR

I repeat. Reference a single idea from one of your propaganda videos, tell us at what time if happened in the video to verify you actually watched it (as opposed to just passing around propaganda handed to you by your peak priest in the hopes that others are more gullible than even you) and then offer an opinion based on that piece of information, verifying you are not a parrot specializing in cutting and pasting the propaganda provided you by your religion.

Thinking for oneself isn't all that difficult Jiggsy, give it a try. You might like it, powering up a neuron or two.


----------



## editec

lehr said:


> the whole world drills for oil ---- amerika builds useless 10th. century wind mills


 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=963o0wHwhEU]Everything Old Is New Again - YouTube[/ame]​


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> I repeat. Reference a single idea from one of your propaganda videos, tell us at what time if happened in the video to verify you actually watched it (as opposed to just passing around propaganda handed to you by your peak priest in the hopes that others are more gullible than even you) and then offer an opinion based on that piece of information, verifying you are not a parrot specializing in cutting and pasting the propaganda provided you by your religion.
> 
> Thinking for oneself isn't all that difficult Jiggsy, give it a try. You might like it, powering up a neuron or two.



I just DID reference it. That very segment is from the ASPO videos linked above, you lawyerish moron. 

Whatever crap you try and pass off in your alternate reality, skip pretending I haven't read/seen the subject material I present. You can rest assured I've absorbed every minute of those videos. So, take your pick. Every passage assaults your "nothing to see here" falsehood, from men WAY further up the industry chain than goofy, denialist you.

But if you really must pretend you need to be led by the hand in your perpetual requirement to stall and avoid, then scroll to the last two minutes of the first video. Here it is again:

starting at 5:03 with Sadad Al Husseini, former Saudi Aramco VP

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZp-OxZuflE&feature=player_embedded]Acknowledging Peak Oil, featuring Sadad al-Husseini - YouTube[/ame]


_*Question*: Why do you think there is so much denial that world oil production is approaching or has reached a plateau?

*Sadad*: There is a push-back to the notion that there is a plateau in world oil supplies which is largely based on lack of information or lack of research. ((RGR for example)) ...  In fact, if you look at published informationfor example, British Petroleums annual statistical reportit very clearly shows that from 2003 forward, oil production has hardly increased. So the information is there.* If you look at some of the advertising that Chevron has been putting out for years now, they clearly say were half-way through the worlds reserves*. The information is there. The facts are there. *Oil prices did not jump four-fold, (or) three or four times in the last five years for any reason other than a shortage of supply. *Yes, there may have been some recent volatility in 2008, but the price trend started climbing way back in 2002-2003. So, these are realities and the push-back is a sense that somehow the market is not able to deal with these realities, that somehow people cant cope with these realities.

On the other hand, if you dont talk about them, you never will fix the situation. This is not going to get any better. This is going to get worse because you have population growth all over the world, you have a standard of living that is improving all over the world, you have aspirations across the globe for a better quality of life, and people want energy, *so its actually important to talk about the facts and come up with solutions rather than act as if these issues dont exist and then wait for some solution to materialize out of nowhere* ((like some of the geniuses on this forum believe)). Thats a role of governmentto highlight these issues and to fix them, or at least take a stand and try to fix them. So I think the push-back is probably ill-advised._​
((emphasis mine))

There, pumpkin. Was that clear enough for you?

So again, for the 37th time, why are these men lying? Where did they meet to coordinate their great conspiracy?...  Or, if they're not lying, are they just dumb? Perhaps at some point, you'll actually answer the question being asked. I know it's awkward for you at this point, but give it a try. I'd love to see you try and pretend al Husseini, or Gilbert, or Buckee, or Skrebowski don't know what they're talking about. Replete with perhaps another boast about how awesome you are as a wildcatter.

Peak is here. These men know it. Why don't you? Odd that you know everything, yet these guys get paid WAY more than you do to advise on energy matters.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> There, pumpkin. Was that clear enough for you?



Much better. Now, what is your comment on which of these ideas? I'm not talking about your general bluster and chest pounding in the hopes of gaining converts, what part of that quote do you think matters, and why? Jiggsy thoughts now, not theirs.

Do you like his plateau idea instead of the traditional peak? Halfway through reserves? Jump in nominal oil prices? Price volatility? Increasing population?

Pick one, because certainly shotgunning random concepts was hardly what I requested. Past experience with you has shown you have propaganda cutting and pasting skills a mile wide but only an inch deep, we want to actually get you to THINK for once.


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> There, pumpkin. Was that clear enough for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Much better. Now, what is your comment on which of these ideas? I'm not talking about your general bluster and chest pounding in the hopes of gaining converts, what part of that quote do you think matters, and why? Jiggsy thoughts now, not theirs.
> 
> Do you like his plateau idea instead of the traditional peak? Halfway through reserves? Jump in nominal oil prices? Price volatility? Increasing population?
> 
> Pick one, because certainly shotgunning random concepts was hardly what I requested. Past experience with you has shown you have propaganda cutting and pasting skills a mile wide but only an inch deep, we want to actually get you to THINK for once.
Click to expand...


LOL... So you can't bring yourself to call them dishonest, nor dumb. Good choice.

It's clear as day that everything the man said supports my argument fully, and turns yours on it's ear. What part about the bolded are you still confused about?

The man said the price points have been rising all decade and that it's all due* to "nothing OTHER than a shortfall in supply*." I'd say that's pretty succinct and to the point, and hammers your entire belief system. You can't stand that you've been brought face to face with how fail your "nothing to see here" argument has been.

You officially look like a coincitard who's looking for any escape hatch you can find at this point. You don't know whether to pretend those men are lying, or that they're just not as smart as you. So you continue to stall, and extend the play. LOL.

You're not fooling anyone, littlle cornucopian. You lost. We are at peak. Deal with it.  All the evidence and testimony supports it. 

Your endless allusions to "vast" unconventional reserves don't change the equation. Sorry. Perhaps you can appeal to the musings of CERA-paid  Daniel Yergin for more empty denial, parrot.[/thread]


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> There, pumpkin. Was that clear enough for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Much better. Now, what is your comment on which of these ideas? I'm not talking about your general bluster and chest pounding in the hopes of gaining converts, what part of that quote do you think matters, and why? Jiggsy thoughts now, not theirs.
> 
> Do you like his plateau idea instead of the traditional peak? Halfway through reserves? Jump in nominal oil prices? Price volatility? Increasing population?
> 
> Pick one, because certainly shotgunning random concepts was hardly what I requested. Past experience with you has shown you have propaganda cutting and pasting skills a mile wide but only an inch deep, we want to actually get you to THINK for once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL... So you can't bring yourself to call them dishonest, nor dumb. Good choice.
Click to expand...


I haven't even ventured an opinion yet halfwit.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> It's clear as day that everything the man said supports my argument fully, and turns yours on it's ear. What part about the bolded are you still confused about?



I'm not sure that YOU know what your argument is, which is why starting with just one piece seems like a reasonable way to determine how shallow your knowledge of peak oil actually is.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> The man said the price points have been rising all decade and that it's all due* to "nothing OTHER than a shortfall in supply*." I'd say that's pretty succinct and to the point, and hammers your entire belief system.



So is that the part you want to discuss?


----------



## editec

Here's one thing I am drop dead certain of.

As the price of oil continues to climb faster than the overakk rate of inflation, the VALUE of alternative sources of energy also continues to climb.

I think it might behoove the American people to get ahead of that curve.

Don't really kinow what part wind power will play in that formula, but wind IS an energy source that we bearly tap in this nation.


----------



## RGR

editec said:


> Here's one thing I am drop dead certain of.
> 
> As the price of oil continues to climb faster than the overakk rate of inflation, the VALUE of alternative sources of energy also continues to climb.
> 
> I think it might behoove the American people to get ahead of that curve.



I would venture that we already are. Certainly we may not be as far down the path as the Germans for example, but we appear to be more flexible in our solutions than they are, and as the worlds biggest energy hog, it is more in our best interest to solve this issue for the world than it is theirs,

I think that the beginnings of manufacturers providing transportation alternatives for the average commuting American is itself a game changer both because we substitute electrical sources of fuel for crude based ones and develop the practical experience to do it on a much grander scale than others (except perhaps the Chinese) could ever hope to.


----------



## Old Rocks

Well, RGR, we will not do it by starving the scientific establishment as the Teabaggers wish to do. We need, ASAP, a distributed grid. And we need to put legs of that grid out to where the energy is. Like the Interstate System, I cannot see this happening by any other means than government projects.


----------



## Old Rocks

This graph says all that need to be said about peak oil in the US.

File:US Oil Production and Imports 1920 to 2005.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## RGR

Old Rocks said:


> This graph says all that need to be said about peak oil in the US.
> 
> File:US Oil Production and Imports 1920 to 2005.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Actually, it doesn't. And what it doesn't show is the past few years of crude oil production increases because of the development of unconventional oil resources. 

Natural gas completely reversed Hubbert's predicted natural gas decline in the US, starting a decade after the decline had taken hold. Took the next 30 years to fight its way back to an entirely new peak natural gas, but it certainly put the kibosh on the old bell shaped curve being of value in predicting these things. I wonder if unconventional oil production can do the same thing?


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> Actually, it doesn't. And what it doesn't show is the past few years of crude oil production increases because of the development of unconventional oil resources.



Then why don't YOU show this, and quantify just how much production those resources provide thus far? You were asked to do so many months ago, several times. Show the data. Not reserve totals, but production rate and increase in production rate over time.

You wouldn't provide that link, because we both know said total is negligible up against dying existing conventional capacity and rising global demand. The total in "unconventionals" production is akin to kicking a late fourth-quarter field goal while down 40 points and pretending you're "getting right back in the game" as a result.



RGR said:


> Natural gas completely reversed Hubbert's predicted natural gas decline in the US, starting a decade after the decline had taken hold. Took the next 30 years to fight its way back to an entirely new peak natural gas, but it certainly put the kibosh on the old bell shaped curve being of value in predicting these things. I wonder if unconventional oil production can do the same thing?



"Wonder" is about all you have. Because, without a doubt, you don't have the data that shows it's being produced at any significant rate.

Unconventionals are something like 3-times as expensive. And with the global economy on the brink already, and during a time of austerity measures, pretending the infrastructure for unconventionals can be multiplied many times over is pure hubris.

*edit: ah what the hell... we both know you WON'T link your claim... I'll do it:






Source - ASPO





Like I said... Negligible. 

But I'm sure "the markets" will up those pathetic totals of unconventional production, 10-fold, in no time.  ... And of course, consumers and small business will easily be able to afford the new price points.


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> So is that the part you want to discuss?



One of a few dozen from those videos, sure.  We can start with that one if you like.

Let's remember something: 

- the burden is on me to show that peak is here...

but then, in mocking that claim... 

-  the burden is on YOU to show that it's either a) not here, or b) perhaps here, but still an "easy game." 

So far, you appear to be attempting to assert both A and B. And the dual strategies are really hindering each other badly.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> So is that the part you want to discuss?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of a few dozen from those videos, sure.  We can start with that one if you like.
Click to expand...


Fine. Lets start with this one.

_"Oil prices did not jump four-fold, (or) three or four times in the last five years for any reason other than a shortage of supply."_

Shortage of supply! Shortages sound pretty bad! Not enough oil around and all. Shortages explicitly imply something, and that something is no surplus capacity. 

Spare capacity of several million barrels a day in 2010.

The Oil Drum: Europe | OPEC's Spare Crude Oil Capacity - Will it Disappear by the End of 2011?

Spare capacity (for OPEC alone!) from 2003 through 2009?

The Oil Drum: Europe | Oilwatch Monthly September 2009

Seems a bit difficult to declare there isn't enough supply when there have been millions of barrels a day laying around, just waiting around, doesn't it Jiggsy?

Perhaps his concern was more specific to the 2008 price spike? And he didn't really mean the more moderate, and less than the last great running out of the 70's time period, in terms of real oil prices?

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

So now Jiggsy, I figure we have a choice. We talk about 1) why it was so easy to contradict your source, 2) why the contradicting information isn't as contradictory as it seems or 3) you call me names and change the subject for dealing with this particular peak propaganda so easily.

Obviously, based on your past behavior I expect you to choose 3.

However, it seems fair to offer you choice #4. Pick another question, one which perhaps you are more comfortable defending on your own without mindlessly cutting and pasting your church's propaganda.


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> Fine. Lets start with this one.
> 
> _"Oil prices did not jump four-fold, (or) three or four times in the last five years for any reason other than a shortage of supply."_
> 
> Shortage of supply! Shortages sound pretty bad! Not enough oil around and all. Shortages explicitly imply something, and that something is no surplus capacity.



LOL... You really don't know what you're talking about. But worse, you're 1) such an intellectually dishonest individual, 2) incredibly lazy as a poster.

You attempt to refute a premise by distorting what a statement means. In this example, you pretend very temporary spare production capacity is some big barometer of the long-term supply picture. Fail. Hilarious fail.

Spare capacity is just that. Spare capacity. It's the cartels' alleged ability to stretch maximum production limits for a short period should it need to, as in the case of disruption elsewhere (Libya, for instance). It's not figures they claim they can actually sustain, and it's more a statement on their processing ability, NOT what they have to work with in total.

At this point, it's hard to tell if you're just dumb, or lying again. But the fact that you just lazily threw a few links out there without even attempting to qualify what you think they're trying to say is amusingly half-assed on your part. It really smacks of a desperate poster who is anxious to smokescreen and escape accountability for an untenable position. I SERIOUSLY doubt YOU yourself even read them.  Because:



RGR said:


> Spare capacity of several million barrels a day in 2010.
> 
> The Oil Drum: Europe | OPEC's Spare Crude Oil Capacity - Will it Disappear by the End of 2011?
> 
> From your own fucking link, genius:
> 
> _In this post, I use the same definition of OPEC spare capacity as the IEA. *This is capacity that can be reached within 30 days and sustained for 90 days.*
> 
> What the above diagram illustrates is that OPEC crude oil supplies for all practical purposes remained on a moderately bumpy plateau between July 2004 and late 2008. During this period, crude oil prices grew from around $40/Bbl to more than $140/Bbl.* The steep rise in prices are now thought to be the combined result of physically tight supplies* and speculators detecting these tight supplies
> 
> $70 - 80/bbl oil suggests a redistribution of spending within several economies; that is more money is used for oil/energy and less for spending on other things. If this is so, then this will show up in statistics from retailers, restaurants, car sales and other service industries. Reduced availability of credit and higher unemployment (amongst other factors) most likely also play a major part in declining discretionary spending.
> 
> The fact that prices have remained as high as $70 to $80 a barrel with only a modest rise in global oil demand/consumption suggests that as supplies become even tighter in the future, prices will rise even higher yet. This analysis suggests that we may continue to see strong oil prices as long as all the wheels stay on the major economies._​
> Thanks for linking that one. Gonna save it, as it winds up doing far more for my argument than it does yours.
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spare capacity (for OPEC alone!) from 2003 through 2009?
> 
> The Oil Drum: Europe | Oilwatch Monthly September 2009
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This excellent link is also supreme fail for your premise, as using it again shows you miss the point and are attempting to change the discussion from a over-arching supply concern to one of short-term emergency production capability. Worse, your chart relies almost entirely upon Saudi Arabia's spare capacity claims and Saudi Arabia alone.
> 
> Again, you are not actually challenging what al Husseini actually said. Sorry, you're just not. If you think you are, you had better work harder, and write more clearly.
> 
> Regardless, the world had better damned well have some wiggle room in our ability to adjust for production disruptions (war, disaster, civil unrest, etc.) Else there'd already BE global systemic chaos. So your punt to "spare capacity" claims isn't really saying much about what al Husseini is referring to. Fail. Confirmed further by your reluctance to quote anything from either link.
> 
> Further, from what I've read, I'd suspect all spare capacity is just high water cut at around 70-85%, and inflated to calm markets. There's 3 million barrels of oil they claim they COULD crank out? Even if true: Big deal.
> 
> Address his point. Do better.
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems a bit difficult to declare there isn't enough supply when there have been millions of barrels a day laying around, just waiting around, doesn't it Jiggsy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe in retarded land, where "spare capacity" apparently equates to storage glut? I dunno what you're trying to say here, but we knew months ago you're a lol-tastic writer anyway.
> 
> It's "laying around?" Where? What oil are you talking about? Already extracted, sitting in tankers? Or in the ground and "ready" to be extracted at an increased rate for a few weeks/months if needed? ... WTF are you even trying to claim?
> 
> If it's the latter, so what? That does absolutely nothing to counter the argument of overall supply shortage.
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps his concern was more specific to the 2008 price spike? And he didn't really mean the more moderate, and less than the last great running out of the 70's time period, in terms of real oil prices?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another poorly written paragraph. But I'll try to guess what you were _trying_ to say, anyway. The 600% rise in price the past 12 years has been rather monotonous, so if you're pretending al Husseini is referencing just the 2008 spike, that's laughably obtuse. Especially considering I quoted the man saying:
> 
> _"Yes, there may have been some recent volatility in 2008, but the price trend started climbing way back in 2002-2003."_​
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> &#8216;Perhaps 60% of today&#8217;s oil price is pure speculation&#8217;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love how you just randomly toss in some link about speculation, without even attempting to flesh out what you think that means in relation to the underlying debate here. That's what I mean by you being both dishonest AND lazy.
> 
> You can slap lipstick on it is you like. Ultimately, the speculators are "speculating" that there will be supply problems. So what's your point? Any way you wanna slice it, the relentless long term price increase indicates supply constraints for a world that needs ever more of it each year.
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now Jiggsy, I figure we have a choice. We talk about 1) why it was so easy to contradict your source, 2) why the contradicting information isn't as contradictory as it seems or 3) you call me names and change the subject ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL. Toolbox, you're still not fooling anyone here.
> 
> 1) you didn't contradict my source in the least, and he would be laughing at you if he saw your rationale, just like I am.
> 2) I just did above.
> 3) you mean like you've been doing since you first engaged me on the topic?
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, based on your past behavior I expect you to choose 3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as always, you spike the ball at the 5-yardline, thinking you're in the end zone. Spare capacity and year-over-year production totals are two different areas of discussion.
> 
> As for name-calling. you lit that fire a long time ago. Don't act all BUTT-HURT about getting it right back.
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, it seems fair to offer you choice #4. Pick another question, one which perhaps you are more comfortable defending on your own without mindlessly cutting and pasting your church's propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL. Logic-fail!
> 
> You didn't even deal with the first question. I can only imagine the spin you'll attempt to put on the next challenge from those videos.
> 
> Again, men WAY higher up the oil production food chain than goofy you, and all of them raping your fluffy cornucopia ignorance with each passage.
> 
> It is clear at this point that you're learning as you go along.
> 
> But because you write so horribly, and have now become so lazy as your argument erodes,  it remains unclear whether you're attempting to portray the former VP of Saudi Aramco as a liar, or just not very smart. You would be dead wrong either way.
> 
> And being wrong (and being evasive) is something you've got to be quite used to by now.
> 
> I sense a smarmy fisking retort of one-sentence quips coming as soon as your text alert clears and you scramble to the site to hammer out another round of irrelevant, miss-the-mark rationalization and goal-post shifting. You know, within the hour as you usually do.
Click to expand...


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine. Lets start with this one.
> 
> _"Oil prices did not jump four-fold, (or) three or four times in the last five years for any reason other than a shortage of supply."_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I sense a smarmy fisking retort of one-sentence quips coming as soon as your text alert clears and you scramble to the site to hammer out another round of irrelevant, miss-the-mark rationalization and goal-post shifting. You know, within the hour as you usually do.
Click to expand...


Do you have any coherent response at all to the multiple sources disputing your single source, or are you just going to concentrate on distracting others from how easy it was to find references contradicting your propaganda?

Just pick one, your inability to pay attention is as bad a cat chasing string.

The claimed shortage of supply did not exist, there was surplus capacity around the entire timeframe in question. You are welcome for being so ignorant of your own sources that you are appreciative of me finding them for you. The price spike was not caused by these imaginary shortages. How difficult is it for even an oiltard like you to understand the basics involved?


----------



## TruthSeeker56

I love watching the enviro-nazis try to fight their way out of the corners they always bullshit their way into.


----------



## Moonglow

oil is a llimited resourch and will run out. Got luck with ur horse


----------



## bripat9643

JiggsCasey said:


> "Wonder" is about all you have. Because, without a doubt, you don't have the data that shows it's being produced at any significant rate.
> 
> Unconventionals are something like 3-times as expensive. And with the global economy on the brink already, and during a time of austerity measures, pretending the infrastructure for unconventionals can be multiplied many times over is pure hubris.
> 
> *edit: ah what the hell... we both know you WON'T link your claim... I'll do it:
> 
> Like I said... Negligible.
> 
> But I'm sure "the markets" will up those pathetic totals of unconventional production, 10-fold, in no time.  ... And of course, consumers and small business will easily be able to afford the new price points.



Your charts are from a hack propaganda site.  Note:  there is no source listed for them.  They were obviously made up from whole cloth by a gang of leftwing agitators.


----------



## deja

hello...
i found this very helpful to make my own solar panel.... i m hopping u ll find too.. this is very cost effective and includes every minor information too. this makes very easy too make solar panel at home. after vewing this u ll be surprised tht how easy to make energy at home.


----------



## Old Rocks

RGR said:


> Cimerian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but how do you determine we have reached peak oil in the 70s?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By looking at global oil production data. Global peak was 1979. It declined, and about 10-15 years later, miraculously, it peaked again! This has happened before, in many places, many countries, and it is a well kept secret of the peaker religion. They certainly don't want it exposed to the general public, who then might ask the question, "If oil can peak multiple times, what are the odds of the current peak being overrun by yet another in the future."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cimerian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but we do not know how much oil Earth has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have some very good guesses however. The peak religion doesn't want to talk about those either.
Click to expand...


The peak that I was speaking of was here in the USA. And it has never come back, or reached that peak again, and it will not.


File:Hubbert US high.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## flacaltenn

deja said:


> hello...
> i found this very helpful to make my own solar panel.... i m hopping u ll find too.. this is very cost effective and includes every minor information too. this makes very easy too make solar panel at home. after vewing this u ll be surprised tht how easy to make energy at home.



Wow that was easy.. If it's THAT obvious and THAT easy -- why are we still spending BILLIONS of tax dollars to subsidize it?

I sense the number of house fires is gonna jump dramatically...


----------



## Old Rocks

I sense that Flat doesn't know much about anything related to energy. Care to post where a house fire has been blamed on properly installed solar panels?


----------



## RGR

Old Rocks said:


> The peak that I was speaking of was here in the USA. And it has never come back, or reached that peak again, and it will not.



Oh..THAT peak. Versus the other ones which happened...like say global peak oil production in 1979...and which then happened AGAIN? How about Hubbert's claim of peak natural gas in the US, that one did come back again....40 years later...any chance he provided a method letting us amateurs know which peaks we are supposed to pretend are real, versus the ones which aren't? Such a clue might be helpful, don't you think? Would have come in pretty helpful when Colin Campbell was predicting global peak oil in 1989, don't you think?

How many decades do we have to wait, post peak, to determine that the most recent peak is in fact THE peak we are supposed to worry about? 4 decades? 5? A full century?


----------



## RGR

Old Rocks said:


> I sense that Flat doesn't know much about anything related to energy.



No different than peak oilers then. They let them in the door here, why not all the other people who believe in things just as ridiculous?


----------



## Old Rocks

RGR said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The peak that I was speaking of was here in the USA. And it has never come back, or reached that peak again, and it will not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh..THAT peak. Versus the other ones which happened...like say global peak oil production in 1979...and which then happened AGAIN? How about Hubbert's claim of peak natural gas in the US, that one did come back again....40 years later...any chance he provided a method letting us amateurs know which peaks we are supposed to pretend are real, versus the ones which aren't? Such a clue might be helpful, don't you think? Would have come in pretty helpful when Colin Campbell was predicting global peak oil in 1989, don't you think?
> 
> How many decades do we have to wait, post peak, to determine that the most recent peak is in fact THE peak we are supposed to worry about? 4 decades? 5? A full century?
Click to expand...


Yes, that peak. The one that actually happened.

File:Hubbert US high.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## RGR

Old Rocks said:


> Yes, that peak. The one that actually happened.
> 
> File:Hubbert US high.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Versus the ones which didn't..or did...waited awhile...and peaked again?

Do you even know how many times oil production peaked in the US (not even were claimed, but actually happened?) prior to the 1970 or thereabouts peak? Or is that another one of those little details which peakers would prefer to pretend didn't happen?

Just because you weren't alive during some of those other peaks doesn't mean you can just wave a wand and make them disappear to validate whatever the most recent claim is.


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> Do you have any coherent response at all to the multiple sources disputing your single source, or are you just going to concentrate on distracting others from how easy it was to find references contradicting your propaganda?



My entire previous response was completely coherent. Playing dumb doesn't change the fact that your multiple sources were put in proper perspective. Squawking about spare production capacity says absolutely nothing about refuting global reserve decline. Tool.

What's telling is your increasing propensity to truncate my posts, and sweep under the rug the dozens of points that take your tired argument behind the woodshed. Especially the passages from your own link that contradict your own claims. I guess you figure if you don't acknowledge them, they were never actually brought to your attention, and you don't have to deal with the fact that you didn't even read your own links.

You're a desperate industry cheer-leader hoping to extract yourself from these challenges. That much was clear months ago.

Fail.



RGR said:


> The claimed shortage of supply did not exist, there was surplus capacity around the entire timeframe in question. You are welcome for being so ignorant of your own sources that you are appreciative of me finding them for you. The price spike was not caused by these imaginary shortages. How difficult is it for even an oiltard like you to understand the basics involved?



Once again, you thought-addled inbred: "Spare capacity" refers to nothing more than the ability to increase production a bit for a short period of time. It says nothing about overall reserve totals.

 When you're done patting yourself on the back and chirping "you're welcome" for your retarded apples-to-oranges comparison, perhaps you'll stop long enough to process what's been relayed to you some 6 times now.

It is amusing, however, seeing that your final fall back position is one whereby you attempt to pretend that the former VP of Saudi Aramco was lying about shortage of supply.... 

You are an unrivaled fraud of epic proportions. Holy crap, do you ever suck at this.


----------



## JiggsCasey

bripat9643 said:


> Your charts are from a hack propaganda site.  Note:  there is no source listed for them.  They were obviously made up from whole cloth by a gang of leftwing agitators.



Genius, it says right under the charts "Source: ASPO" ...

But, just to placate another angry con: If you dispute the figures in the chart showing "negligible" production expectation, then please feel free to present your own linked data for just how much unconventional production is expected by the international entity of your choice. Can't wait.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any coherent response at all to the multiple sources disputing your single source, or are you just going to concentrate on distracting others from how easy it was to find references contradicting your propaganda?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Squawking about spare production capacity says absolutely nothing about refuting global reserve decline. Tool.
Click to expand...


The point you chose to defend was that the price runup was due to lack of supply. Spare supply means that you can't blame lack of it on the price runup. Secondary references demonstrated that speculators in the market were also driving up the price. Both points you chose to defend, refuted.

Pay attention halfwit, the point had nothing to do with "global reserve decline" which, A) hasn't and B) you don't know what it means anyway.

Engage brain already, and do try and understand that these are points you chose to defend. If you can't, be a man, and just say so. Or be a parrot, and continue doing what it is you do.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Once again, you thought-addled inbred: "Spare capacity" refers to nothing more than the ability to increase production a bit for a short period of time. It says nothing about overall reserve totals.



Your reference, and the point you chose to defend, didn't say anything about overall reserve totals either. Parrot. Fire off a neuron already. Ask a first grader to explain it to you. Go to church and pray for a functioning brain, or have them send an adult over here to discuss these topics.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> It is amusing, however, seeing that your final fall back position is one whereby you attempt to pretend that the former VP of Saudi Aramco was lying about shortage of supply....
> 
> You are an unrivaled fraud of epic proportions. Holy crap, do you ever suck at this.



Read what I wrote. I didn't say he was lying parrot. I referenced other people who had alternative explanations for why the price increased, and why there wasn't a lack of supply.  Is English your first language?


----------



## JiggsCasey

And right on queue, RGR scrambles to USMB within minutes, as soon as his text alert clears. Loser.



RGR said:


> The point you chose to defend was that the price runup was due to lack of supply. Spare supply means that you can't blame lack of it on the price runup. Secondary references demonstrated that speculators in the market were also driving up the price. Both points you chose to defend, refuted.



LOL!!!!!!!!!

So now you've changed your claim from "space production capacity" to "spare supply." You're such a fraud.  Your escape hatch on this one isn't opening. Sorry.



RGR said:


> Pay attention halfwit, the point had nothing to do with "global reserve decline" which, A) hasn't and B) you don't know what it means anyway.



The point has everything to do with it, and your profound debate dishonesty. His words were rather clear: 

_*"Oil prices did not jump four-fold, (or) three or four times in the last five years for any reason other than a shortage of supply. *Yes, there may have been some recent volatility in 2008, but the price trend started climbing way back in 2002-2003. 
_​
So you fired back with some squawk about spare production capacity (which you obviously didn't even read).



RGR said:


> Engage brain already, and do try and understand that these are points you chose to defend. If you can't, be a man, and just say so. Or be a parrot, and continue doing what it is you do.



Kicking your ass all over this forum? Yes, I'll continue to do that. Enthusiastically so with every attempt at snakeoil sales you try and pass off.

Not only did I defend the points by linking to industry men WAY higher up the oil production chain than goofy you who all say the same thing, but I reminded anyone reading that your lame attempts to refute have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with what the man said.

Dick.



RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you thought-addled inbred: "Spare capacity" refers to nothing more than the ability to increase production a bit for a short period of time. It says nothing about overall reserve totals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your reference, and the point you chose to defend, didn't say anything about overall reserve totals either.
Click to expand...


That's because hundreds of my previous posts here on the matter DO, replete with links from international entities. Do I need to include the entirety of my post history each time so that you can't fake your way out of it?

This is why you're a dishonest debate opponent. You're a liar, and you fake ignorance to what's been asserted already.



RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is amusing, however, seeing that your final fall back position is one whereby you attempt to pretend that the former VP of Saudi Aramco was lying about shortage of supply....
> 
> You are an unrivaled fraud of epic proportions. Holy crap, do you ever suck at this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read what I wrote. I didn't say he was lying parrot. I referenced other people who had alternative explanations for why the price increased, and why there wasn't a lack of supply.  Is English your first language?
Click to expand...


I asked you three or four times to say whether you felt the man was lying or just wrong.

You appear to be hopping back and forth, depending on what adheres to links you didn't actually read.

So now you're back to trying to claim the man has it all wrong. Doing so by oddly alluding to claims of production capacity capability. Of course, you ignore claims of declining production rates for existing reserves - the crux of both those ASPO videos.

Once again, for your retardation rehab: The "spare capacity" is the ability to increase production in order to mitigate a supply shock elsewhere. It has NOTHING TO DO with the greater picture of dying existing capacity over the longterm.

It was clear a long time ago, you have no idea what you're talking about. You already admitted you're an "arrogant prick," so it follows that you'd try dishonest games to extract yourself from the corner you've backed yourself into.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pay attention halfwit, the point had nothing to do with "global reserve decline" which, A) hasn't and B) you don't know what it means anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point has everything to do with it, and your profound debate dishonesty. His words were rather clear:
> 
> _*"Oil prices did not jump four-fold, (or) three or four times in the last five years for any reason other than a shortage of supply. *Yes, there may have been some recent volatility in 2008, but the price trend started climbing way back in 2002-2003.
> _​
Click to expand...


Please reference in your quote where he said anything about global reserve decline.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> That's because hundreds of my previous posts here on the matter DO, replete with links from international entities. Do I need to include the entirety of my post history each time so that you can't fake your way out of it?



Only if you include your classic about trading me 5 barrels if I give you 2 in return. A display of your basic math skills won't help you out of this one Jiggsy.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read what I wrote. I didn't say he was lying parrot. I referenced other people who had alternative explanations for why the price increased, and why there wasn't a lack of supply.  Is English your first language?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you three or four times to say whether you felt the man was lying or just wrong.
Click to expand...


Ask whatever you wish. Stick to one point at a time, as you haven't been able to do in two different examples now (Hirsch report and this Saudi dude) and I will probably answer. Scattershot nonsense everywhere, and you get what you get.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> So now you're back to trying to claim the man has it all wrong. Doing so by oddly alluding to claims of production capacity capability. Of course, you ignore claims of declining production rates for existing reserves - the crux of both those ASPO videos.



Perhaps you missed the part where I mentioned you should just stick to one point at a time? I choose, at your request, one from a quote of the Saudi dude. Not some of the academics at ASPO (like the President and Secretary) who haven't done anything to an oil field in their entire lives. You like references who don't know anything about oil, don't you Jiggsy?



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> It was clear a long time ago, you have no idea what you're talking about.



Come see all us know nothings in April Jiggsy. Didn't I ask you this question last spring, and it seems you were a no show? 

AAPG Annual Convention & Exhibition - Long Beach 2012

we can tour the tar pits, I'll introduce you to some actual geologists, so then you can parrot people who know what they are talking about?


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> Please reference in your quote where he said anything about global reserve decline.



Well, if he's talking about price points over a 10-year span, how in the world could have NOT been referencing global shortfall when he mentions "shortage of supply?" ...  Clearly your strategy is to 1) not watch the videos, so as to even acknowledge the rather obvious claim being made about global decline, and 2) pigeon hole one quote, while willfully refusing to acknowledge the man's message as a whole. 

This is why you're 1) a dick, and 2) a completely dishonest poster. There is absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind - among those being honest - that Sadad al-Husseini, former VP of Saudi Aramco, believes strongly that world conventional oil reserves are past peak.

Oops, sorry that claim contradicts your "nothing to see here" platform. But you're gonna need to do a little better than pretending that's not what he meant.



RGR said:


> Only if you include your classic about trading me 5 barrels if I give you 2 in return. A display of your basic math skills won't help you out of this one Jiggsy.



Once again, that's not at all what I said, and you're hoping that if enough time passes, and you repeat the falsehood enough, that you can re-write forum history. Either that, or you have a serious reading comprehension problem. The statement was about heavy oil's net energy, or EROEI... A concept that you alternatively fail to understand, as well as pretend is not important. This is how utterly retarded you make yourself out to be throughout this discussion.



RGR said:


> Ask whatever you wish. Stick to one point at a time, as you haven't been able to do in two different examples now (Hirsch report and this Saudi dude) and I will probably answer. Scattershot nonsense everywhere, and you get what you get.



LOL. Sticking to one point is precisely what I have accomplished each time, as you weasel your way out of one corner after another. You've been pinned down a number of times, and have been left punting.

In fact, every direct challenge asked of you has been met with evasion or deflection.

Q: where's the new oil going to come from enough to meet new demand and counter dying existing capacity? 
A: "where it always has"

Q: can you show how much unconventional production has even amounted to so far?
A: <crickets> ... 

Q: can you show some data by any entity asserting how much unconventional production is expected to amount to going forward?
A: <crickets> or "I don't need to, halfwit." ... LOL

Q: Is Sadad al-Husseini, and others in these videos you're too chickenshit to watch, lying or just wrong? (asked 4 or 5 times)
A: "spare capacity is good... speculators are to blame for prices... please focus, Jiggsy."

I mean, seriously. You're such an obviously beaten opponent at this point, I might start feeling bad for you if you weren't such a prick.



RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now you're back to trying to claim the man has it all wrong. Doing so by oddly alluding to claims of production capacity capability. Of course, you ignore claims of declining production rates for existing reserves - the crux of both those ASPO videos.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you missed the part where I mentioned you should just stick to one point at a time? I choose, at your request, one from a quote of the Saudi dude. Not some of the academics at ASPO (like the President and Secretary) who haven't done anything to an oil field in their entire lives.
Click to expand...


Well, coward, when the same question is asked of you multiple times, and it's clear you continue to run from it, some of us have to move on to other lines of questioning you might actually be able to handle. You know, just to keep the discussion fluid. Perhaps if you addressed a point directly for once, we could have some closure on a topic you're so desperate to maintain a fraudulent position on.

You were originally challenged to explain how all those men were wrong (or why they might just be lying). You complained you couldn't be bothered, and to focus on one quote. One quote was focused on, and - in successive turns - you have attempted to paint the man as 1) lying, 2) wrong, and now 3) somehow not actually saying what he's in fact saying. 

LOL!!!!!



RGR said:


> You like references who don't know anything about oil, don't you Jiggsy?



You wouldn't last 5 minutes successfully disputing any man in those videos. They're WAY further up the oil production chain than goofy you are, and each of them completely contradict your "plenty of oil" hubris. You hate that, so you are left having to pretend they're all just dumb. Including the former chief petroleum geologist at BP.   You're such a laughable narcissist, you believe you know more than these men.

My God, do you ever suck at this.



RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was clear a long time ago, you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come see all us know nothings in April Jiggsy. Didn't I ask you this question last spring, and it seems you were a no show?
> 
> AAPG Annual Convention & Exhibition - Long Beach 2012
> 
> we can tour the tar pits, I'll introduce you to some actual geologists, so then you can parrot people who know what they are talking about?
Click to expand...


Ah yes, when all else fails, challenge me to come to your house of fraud where your associates can back you up and handle the clear-cut inquiries you can't seem to find an answer for.

Maybe one of them can explain to you how spare capacity has nothing to do with the question of  overall reserve totals. You seem to have profound difficulty with that notion.

Meanwhile, I'll be at the annual ASPO conference. It's coming up in a few weeks in D.C. Bring your friends, and present your "facts."  

Maybe you can try the "spare capacity" angle on the panel. You know, replete with ironic theoildrum.com links you didn't actually read.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please reference in your quote where he said anything about global reserve decline.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if he's talking about price points over a 10-year span, how in the world could have NOT been referencing global shortfall when he mentions "shortage of supply?"
Click to expand...


Reserve decline isn't shortage of supply. There is a huge difference. You should learn it if you want to discuss oil topics without looking like..well...a parrot.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> ...  Clearly your strategy is to 1) not watch the videos, so as to even acknowledge the rather obvious claim being made about global decline, and 2) pigeon hole one quote, while willfully refusing to acknowledge the man's message as a whole.



I asked you to choose a point you understood, and could defend. You haven't done that yet on the two points referenced, 1) how Hirsch's 2005 report can be used to refute his own statements and B) there were no shortages of supply in the referenced time period and speculators were involved as much as market constraint during the 2008 price run up.

If you don't like the points you choose, and aren't capable of defending them without more cutting and pasting and not a single independent thought, I recommend you take up drooling on yourself as a profession, if that is all you are capable of.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> You wouldn't last 5 minutes successfully disputing any man in those videos.



Your propaganda can't fight back. Apparently, neither can you, when given every opportunity.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Maybe one of them can explain to you how spare capacity has nothing to do with the question of  overall reserve totals. You seem to have profound difficulty with that notion.



Learn the difference between production and reserves, and you can trip over your inadequate knowledge on this topic next. Do try and find someone to quote however, and then read up a little on the difference, certainly at this point in time you don't realize even what the differences are between them.



			
				JiggsCasey said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, I'll be at the annual ASPO conference. It's coming up in a few weeks in D.C. Bring your friends, and present your "facts."



They aren't allowed to attend. You see Jiggsy, peak oil believers, even ones with functioning brains who aren't parrots, can't dispute the facts of this case any better than you can at the end of the day, their more advanced understanding of church dogma notwithstanding. And this is because you all suffer from the limitations of your belief system, rather than confronting the science and facts of resource depletion.


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reserve decline isn't shortage of supply. There is a huge difference. You should learn it if you want to discuss oil topics without looking like..well...a parrot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering the entirety of his entire interview, and his numerous other statements on the matter, it's inferred rather clearly that he's referring to both. Reserve decline most certainly will lead to supply shortage. And considering conventional production has flat-lined for 7 years, and the global economy has been collapsing for the past 4, it's obviously become a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you to choose a point you understood, and could defend. You haven't done that yet on the two points referenced, 1) how Hirsch's 2005 report can be used to refute his own statements and B) there were no shortages of supply in the referenced time period and speculators were involved as much as market constraint during the 2008 price run up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL. Quite the contrary. Every point I've beaten your tired ass with I've understood, and the two you're squawking about above were defended effectively. You spun the first one, and deflected from the second. The price points have been rising rapidly for over 10 years, so to pretend speculation has much to do with long-term pricing confirms again that you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like the points you choose, and aren't capable of defending them without more cutting and pasting and not a single independent thought, I recommend you take up drooling on yourself as a profession, if that is all you are capable of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every point I've chosen has left you looking more and more foolish. Every time I offer personal perspective, you truncate the post, pretend you don't understand, or spin the intent. You're just a dishonest fraud who continues to dance around a topic that's become completely untenable for you.
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your propaganda can't fight back. Apparently, neither can you, when given every opportunity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, so it's propaganda again? We're back to asserting the men I've presented, way further up the oil production chain than your fraudulent ass, are all lying?
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe one of them can explain to you how spare capacity has nothing to do with the question of  overall reserve totals. You seem to have profound difficulty with that notion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Learn the difference between production and reserves, and you can trip over your inadequate knowledge on this topic next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poetic irony here. I'm not the one trying to pretend spare capacity is an indication of long term reserve health. That would be you, toolbox.
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do try and find someone to quote however, and then read up a little on the difference, certainly at this point in time you don't realize even what the differences are between them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More irony. You're the one who needs to read up on the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, I'll be at the annual ASPO conference. It's coming up in a few weeks in D.C. Bring your friends, and present your "facts."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They aren't allowed to attend. You see Jiggsy, peak oil believers, even ones with functioning brains who aren't parrots, can't dispute the facts of this case any better than you can at the end of the day, their more advanced understanding of church dogma notwithstanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you keep parroting this mantra over and over again. Hasn't helped with your horrible gameplan of fail. Every challenge you've been presented with, you've pussied out of.
> 
> Where's the oil going to come from to meet future demand? How much unconventional oil has anyone claimed can be attained going forward? How much already is produced? Why is net energy not important in accessing the end of growth?
> 
> Every time, you punt. You suck at this, because your argument has no where to go, and yet you must keep your chin up and maintain the pattern epistemic closure that your team is so famous for.
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> And this is because you all suffer from the limitations of your belief system, rather than confronting the science and facts of resource depletion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL. What "science and facts" do you think you have presented that shows peak oil is decades away? Still waiting for it.
> 
> When you get done patting your arrogant self on the back for a job not well done, do roll up your sleeves and, for once, get to the "science and facts" part of your piss poor overall argument.
> 
> In the meantime, if you can't find a way to attend the latest ASPO conference, please do STFU about me attending your fraudulent industry circle jerk.
> 
> Ah well, here's a primer for you... You know, where you pretend all these men are lying and not as smart as your goofy self, despite challenging cornucopians to show how they arrive at their data:
> 
> *DOE OIL & GAS SUPPLY FORECASTS DANGEROUSLY MISLEADING*
> 
> Global Economy Threatened As World Oil Production Stalls For Seventh Year
> The Oil Drum | ASPO-USA Conference, November 2 - 5; Letter to Secretary Chu
> 
> _&#8220;Despite rising demand and a large increase in oil prices, world oil supply has been on a plateau; it has stayed relatively constant since 2005,&#8221; said Robert L. Hirsch, co-author of The Impending World Energy Mess. &#8220;Simultaneously, production from existing world oil fields is declining at a high rate. Both of these developments are unprecedented, yet DOE and EIA [Energy Information Administration] have dismissed them as not being of major concern.&#8221;
> 
> *&#8220;We are not running out of oil. But we appear to be running out of oil that we can afford.&#8221;
> *Jim Baldauf, president and co-founder of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas-USA
> 
> Tom Whipple, a former CIA analyst and chief editor of ASPO-USA&#8217;s Peak Oil Review, said, &#8220;There are literally dozens of reports and analyses appearing every week around the world pointing to the fact that the world is facing major challenges in maintaining, much less growing, the global supply of oil in next few years.&#8221; He added, &#8220;Our concern here today is the growing disconnect between the solid evidence of serious troubles ahead and the Department of Energy&#8217;s benign projections concerning the availability of fossil fuels in the next 30 years.&#8221;_​
> We understand, Mr. Whipple. We deal with the same frauds right here on our little forum who have a psychological blockage when it comes to basic understanding of the Earth's natural limits (and the data that bears those limits out, plain as day).
Click to expand...


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reserve decline isn't shortage of supply. There is a huge difference. You should learn it if you want to discuss oil topics without looking like..well...a parrot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering the entirety of his entire interview, and his numerous other statements on the matter, it's inferred rather clearly that he's referring to both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about. Reserves are not supply. I recommend you read something, learn something, do something other than repeat nonsense. Your reference didn't say what you are claiming, and the reason why is he does probably know the difference between reserves and production. Go learn something, or go back to your church and send us someone with a functioning brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RGR said:
> 
> 
> 
> And this is because you all suffer from the limitations of your belief system, rather than confronting the science and facts of resource depletion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL. What "science and facts" do you think you have presented that shows peak oil is decades away? Still waiting for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said peak oil was decades away halfwit. Try actually reading what people write rather than making up straw men as you go along. I said it has happened before, and am perfectly willing to stipulate as fact that the most current peak is yet another one. Right until it is not, and peak oilers decide to start pretending it is off in the future. Again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the meantime, if you can't find a way to attend the latest ASPO conference, please do STFU about me attending your fraudulent industry circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ASPO conference is happening the same week that the SPE National is. There are more professionals in the restrooms at that SPE meeting then there are participants at ASPO conferences. Going to ASPO instead is like singing the ABC song with pre-schoolers instead of taking graduate level engineering courses at CSM. Get real you moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We understand, Mr. Whipple. We deal with the same frauds right here on our little forum who have a psychological blockage when it comes to basic understanding of the Earth's natural limits (and the data that bears those limits out, plain as day).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go back to your church and send us Mr Whipple then, at least I'm pretty sure he has a functioning brain. He can explain how peak oil way back in 2005 has been so horrible that we are suffering through yet another production increase to yet another peak oil.
> 
> Look ma! Only peakers are dumb enough to think that the lines in 2011 are lower than the ones in 2005!
Click to expand...


----------



## JiggsCasey

I asked you before: Is that C+C only, or all liquids? Please provide a link to the chart you so arrogantly stand behind. 

Either way, a 2 M/BD increase in six years? You think that rate is maintaining 3-4% annual growth needed to power the machine of rapacious capitalism? 

How are global net exports faring? Oops, down ~10% or so since 2005. That means nations are consuming ever more of their own product, but also a clear indication that flow rates are not keeping up.

The global economy is contracting due to decreasing net energy. Just admit when you're wrong.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> I asked you before: Is that C+C only, or all liquids? Please provide a link to the chart you so arrogantly stand behind.



If I thought you knew what the differences were between various crude types, or would listen when someone like me expained it to you, I might answer that question. Instead, I shall simply reinforce the point most relevant to discrediting your religious beliefs.

Another peak oil coming!! Let the fear mongering begin for the imagined consequences of it...again!!!


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you before: Is that C+C only, or all liquids? Please provide a link to the chart you so arrogantly stand behind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I thought you knew what the differences were between various crude types, or would listen when someone like me expained it to you, I might answer that question. Instead, I shall simply reinforce the point most relevant to discrediting your religious beliefs.
> 
> Another peak oil coming!! Let the fear mongering begin for the imagined consequences of it...again!!!
Click to expand...


So when challenged to source your work, you bail. 

It was a pretty simple question, coward. Is that crude and condensate only in that chart, or all liquids? Don't chicken out. Stand behind your assertion.

Seems like a ripe opportunity to show how smart you are, but you seem to be hoping it goes away again. Seeing a pattern with you when backed into a corner.

Ah well. I'll take your latest end-around as your Roberto Duran "no mas" moment. Cheap oil flow rates have barely moved since 2005. The shortfall to meet demand has been made up by far more expensive, heavier oils, to the detriment of the world economy. That IS peak oil. You know it's true.

Douche.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> So when challenged to source your work, you bail.



I source my work all the time. And you ignore it, because the factual basis of such information reveals you for the oiltard you are.

The question is, are you an oiltard parrot, or just a stupid one? Why are you here at all, considering how little you know about this topic? Were you assigned as a missionary to this particular forum? To convert others, that you might build your own self esteem, having found others as gullible as yourself?


----------



## JiggsCasey

LOL! At this point, your argument has obviously been stripped down to "na, na... i know you are, but what am I?"

You've been asked 3 or 4 times now whether the chart you provided was C+C only, or all liquids. Each time, you've run from that fundamental challenge.



RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when challenged to source your work, you bail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I source my work all the time.
Click to expand...


Except for half the time when you don't, of course ...    like this latest example. 



RGR said:


> And you ignore it, because the factual basis of such information reveals you for the oiltard you are.



The irony here is rich. I read ALL your links, the few times you provide them. And when I do, most of the time there's a passage or three that completely undermines your assertion. Which you're clueless to, because YOU don't even read your OWN links, let alone mine.



RGR said:


> The *deflection* is, are you an oiltard parrot, or just a stupid one?



FYP...

Is this ploy supposed to affect me at this point? Pretending I'm the dumb one when your argument has run out of hot air?  LOL

Anyone still reading this is painfully aware that for all your bluster, you're a coward when challenged to support your work. That's because you know you've backed yourself into a corner.



RGR said:


> Why are you here at all, considering how little you know about this topic? Were you assigned as a missionary to this particular forum? To convert others, that you might build your own self esteem, having found others as gullible as yourself?



I'm here merely because when I see unabashed fraud like yours, I thoroughly enjoy holding it accountable.  You don't know what you're talking about, and nothing confirms that better than your routine dance away from any direct challenge put to you.

This shouldn't be that difficult. My claim is that conventional oil flow rates have leveled off for 6 years now. Your claim is that it has risen steadily. Source the chart, be transparent about what it represents, or shut the fuck up.

In the end, if you're showing that needed global production growth has kept up due to the expansion of ever more expensive net energy (industries that you work in, what a surprise), you haven't debunked that peak oil is upon us. .... *you've only supported the conclusion*. I know you're just now coming to grips with that fact and are embarrassed by how unwittingly you've backed yourself into a corner, but at least be a man about it.

Here, I'll get your obligatory empty prep work done for you ahead of time:

_"Parrot, parrot, dimwit... oiltard, halfwit, parrot parrot, oiltard... cult parrot, religion halfwit, ... parrot, parrot, dimwit.... oiltard sect, parrot, halfwit... you're dumb."_

Now try some substance for once.

Source the chart, ... don't be a pussy.


----------



## Old Rocks

Interesting. 2002, 76.5 million barrels of oil, three years later, 2005, 84 million barrels of oil. But, in 2011, 87.5 million barrels of oil.  So, an increase of 7.5 billion barrels of oil, 2002 to 2005. But an increase of 3.5 billion barrels of oil, 2005 to 2011. In spite of the technologies developed during that time. 7.5 in 3 years versus 3.5 in 6 years. Something is changing for sure.


----------



## whitehall

Global warming is a religion. When the theory doesn't make sense you gotta have faith. The messiah came by just in time with his hope/change sermon and he told us (with a straight face) that America will be weaned off oil dependency if you have faith. Under Barry Hussein's leadership the US invested in solar energy with taxpayer dollars whether we liked it or not and a year later Solindra went belly up. Solar energy don't work. What ever happened to Boone Pickins who broke into the 2008 campaign with a national windmill scenario? Windmills use fossil fuels and kill birds  and the freaking things don't work. You gotta have faith though. The democrat senate majority leader told Americans (with a straight face) "oil makes you sick" but now we are considering bombing Iran into the stone age because cutting off the oil supply might kill Americans. You gotta have faith when you see the greatest Nation in the world sliding into ruin because democrats kiss the asses of every two-bit dictators like Hugo Chevez and Moody Imademagogue while they lie to their own people.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> _"Parrot, parrot, dimwit... oiltard, halfwit, parrot parrot, oiltard... cult parrot, religion halfwit, ... parrot, parrot, dimwit.... oiltard sect, parrot, halfwit... you're dumb."_
> 
> Now try some substance for once.



You seem to have characterized your knowledge on this topic pretty well.

The national AAPG conference is in Long Beach in April. Going to finally stop in and learn something, like where you can find the charts showing ever increasing oil production (again), or are you going to continue to live up to the above referenced characterization?


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"Parrot, parrot, dimwit... oiltard, halfwit, parrot parrot, oiltard... cult parrot, religion halfwit, ... parrot, parrot, dimwit.... oiltard sect, parrot, halfwit... you're dumb."_
> 
> Now try some substance for once.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have characterized your knowledge on this topic pretty well.
> 
> The national AAPG conference is in Long Beach in April. Going to finally stop in and learn something, like where you can find the charts showing ever increasing oil production (again), or are you going to continue to live up to the above referenced characterization?
Click to expand...


LOLfail ... yeah, that's about what I expected.

White flag accepted. Run along now.


----------



## RGR

JiggsCasey said:


> White flag accepted. Run along now.



I shall. I have yet ANOTHER peak oil to worry about! Goodness Jiggsy, maybe the next one will finally be...THE ONE!!!!!


----------



## Mr. H.

cidly24 said:


> e



=


----------



## JiggsCasey

RGR said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> 
> White flag accepted. Run along now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I shall. I have yet ANOTHER peak oil to worry about! Goodness Jiggsy, maybe the next one will finally be...THE ONE!!!!!
Click to expand...


this graph confirms my point...    meanwhile, you think a measly 500-600K increase in 7 years constitutes "growth." ... C+C production has flatlined. You know it's true, no matter how laughably you try and spin it.

LOL... tool


----------



## RGR

Yet another high in global production!!! I guess we can start up yet another round of "OH NOES!!! PEAK OIL IS AGAIN IN THE FUTURE!! THE END IS RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER!!! AGAIN!!!"


----------



## HomeInspect

Michael Ramirez Political Cartoons


----------



## editec

lehr said:


> the whole world drills for oil ---- amerika builds useless 10th. century wind mills


 
Lehr, you have obviously been misinformed if you imagine that the USA is holding back from drilling for oil. 

Here's some REAL numbers for you to consider, kid.


* 2009 Oil and Gas Journal database.*

producing oil wells in the Middle East: 15,074

producing oil wells in OPEC countries: 37,086

*producing oil wells in the United States:  525,998*

*How does it feel to realize that everything you think you know is basically wrong?*


----------

