Oil discoveries dispel "Peak Oil" as myth

[JiggsCasey]

You asked a question with an obvious, and easy, answer. Now you are assembling a strawman.

You really need a better grasp of what a straw man actually is. I didn't present your argument, I offered a follow-up question so that you could, hopefully, flesh out your already FAIL answer.

Follow the discussion more closely. You offered a smarmy, vague quip, then, when asked to follow it up, you ironically pretend I'm the one creating a straw man.

However, I'll play along. Who says people can't afford more efficiency? Lets demonstrate how efficiency works. In 2008 the price of gasoline hit about $4+/gal in the US. I went out and made a reallocation of capital and sold the pickup and collected a regular family sedan instead. So now, me being twice as efficient as before, I am spending LESS than what I did in 2008. This savings will continue until gasoline doubles in price to $8/gal. Efficiency is wonderful. Why would you pretend, through the use of such a ridiculous strawman, that increases in efficiency require bankruptcy?

So typical of a free market con to come off looking blissfully oblivious to the plight of anyone in a lower income bracket, or without the financial maneuverability that you assert to have -- which is likely most people. "A reallocation of capital." Such empathy. It's this kind of pretentious terminology that does not represent the average blue collar worker at all. This may come as a surprise to you, junior Friedman, but huge swaths of America already ARE driving that family sedan, and it's all beat up, and often completely uninsured. Get it yet?

$4 gas 30 months ago led to the greatest financial crash since 1929. ... Imagine what $4-5 gas today will mean, DURING a recession?

The point is, higher gas prices affect the whole of America, including interest rates and food prices. Your individual frugality and financial cushion does not represent the plight of America as a whole, and certainly not the plight of municipal budgets already stretched to the breaking point. How many states are bordering on insolvency again?

Gluttonous cons are all alike. Some just write better. ... You guys have zero empathy for anyone outside your own class structure. None. This above is the same kind of arrogant, RW elitist nonsense that asserted "they were told to leave New Orleans, they should have left New Orleans - it's their own damn fault!" ... Yeah, because of course they all should have just packed up their Escalade and made the short trip up to their summer property in Arkansas to ride out the storm. Surely they all could have easily left.

Find a better strawman.

Get a better grasp of what a straw man actually is.

Until then, get ready to "reallocate your finances" again, while remaining in complete denial of the long-term symptoms.

Oh, wait. You conceded it's a finite resource in another thread. Just that it's not a big deal.

Once again, that's 34 of 51 oil producing nations past peak, and another 6 at peak. Oops...

So what happens when some of those 34 nations decide to peak again? Oops...

Tell you what. I'll offer you a challenge, cool guy: When you can link to any of them reaching their previous peak light crude production output (and beyond) for a full annual average going forward, you'll have a point.

Until then, and I'm supremely confident you'll never be able to provide it, your statement is utterly empty. Again.

 

[westwall]

You asked a question with an obvious, and easy, answer. Now you are assembling a strawman.

You really need a better grasp of what a straw man actually is. I didn't present your argument, I offered a follow-up question so that you could, hopefully, flesh out your already FAIL answer.

Follow the discussion more closely. You offered a smarmy, vague quip, then, when asked to follow it up, you ironically pretend I'm the one creating a straw man.

However, I'll play along. Who says people can't afford more efficiency? Lets demonstrate how efficiency works. In 2008 the price of gasoline hit about $4+/gal in the US. I went out and made a reallocation of capital and sold the pickup and collected a regular family sedan instead. So now, me being twice as efficient as before, I am spending LESS than what I did in 2008. This savings will continue until gasoline doubles in price to $8/gal. Efficiency is wonderful. Why would you pretend, through the use of such a ridiculous strawman, that increases in efficiency require bankruptcy?

So typical of a free market con to come off looking blissfully oblivious to the plight of anyone in a lower income bracket, or without the financial maneuverability that you assert to have -- which is likely most people. "A reallocation of capital." Such empathy. It's this kind of pretentious terminology that does not represent the average blue collar worker at all. This may come as a surprise to you, junior Friedman, but huge swaths of America already ARE driving that family sedan, and it's all beat up, and often completely uninsured. Get it yet?

$4 gas 30 months ago led to the greatest financial crash since 1929. ... Imagine what $4-5 gas today will mean, DURING a recession?

The point is, higher gas prices affect the whole of America, including interest rates and food prices. Your individual frugality and financial cushion does not represent the plight of America as a whole, and certainly not the plight of municipal budgets already stretched to the breaking point. How many states are bordering on insolvency again?

Gluttonous cons are all alike. Some just write better. ... You guys have zero empathy for anyone outside your own class structure. None. This above is the same kind of arrogant, RW elitist nonsense that asserted "they were told to leave New Orleans, they should have left New Orleans - it's their own damn fault!" ... Yeah, because of course they all should have just packed up their Escalade and made the short trip up to their summer property in Arkansas to ride out the storm. Surely they all could have easily left.



Get a better grasp of what a straw man actually is.

Until then, get ready to "reallocate your finances" again, while remaining in complete denial of the long-term symptoms.

Oh, wait. You conceded it's a finite resource in another thread. Just that it's not a big deal.

Once again, that's 34 of 51 oil producing nations past peak, and another 6 at peak. Oops...

So what happens when some of those 34 nations decide to peak again? Oops...

Tell you what. I'll offer you a challenge, cool guy: When you can link to any of them reaching their previous peak light crude production output (and beyond) for a full annual average going forward, you'll have a point.

Until then, and I'm supremely confident you'll never be able to provide it, your statement is utterly empty. Again.

Actually Jiggs, that was not the proximal cause of the economic crash. The incessant media reports telling us we were in an economic free fall were. All the other BS sprung from that. then when the recovery was actually kinda sorta beginning the media once again began reporting that the sky was falling and th commodities brokers got involved and drove the price of oil through the roof, even though the demand was not there.

So we come to the basic question. Are RGR's numbers, as regards the oil supply, correct?

 

[RGR]

You asked a question with an obvious, and easy, answer. Now you are assembling a strawman.

You really need a better grasp of what a straw man actually is. I didn't present your argument, I offered a follow-up question so that you could, hopefully, flesh out your already FAIL answer.

I didn't make an argument. And you didn't pose a follow up question, you assigned an implication to my answer. Which was ridiculous on its face. Like I said before, make a better strawman.

Follow the discussion more closely. You offered a smarmy, vague quip, then, when asked to follow it up, you ironically pretend I'm the one creating a straw man.

If I were you, I wouldn't want to discuss how easy it was to answer the question you posed either.

Why would you pretend, through the use of such a ridiculous strawman, that increases in efficiency require bankruptcy?

So typical of a free market con to remain blissfully oblivious to the plight of anyone in a lower income bracket, or without the financial maneuverability that you assert to have.

I have asserted no financial maneuverability. I assembled a practical example showing how a capital realignment leading to increased efficiency has nothing to do with the health of small business owners nor their implied imminent bankruptcy.

Increased efficiency, in terms of spending less on fuel for an auto in the context of peak oil, for a lower income level, which you have alluded to, would also include walking, bicycling, taking a bus, riding the light rail, carpooling, etc etc. No capital realignment required at all.

This may come as a surprise to you, junior Friedman, but most of America already IS driving that family sedan, and it's all beat up, and often completely uninsured. Get it yet?

Nov/2010 vehicle sales in America break down to about 34% cars (all sizes), 40% light trucks, 9% SUV and 17% cross overs. Of the 5 most popular models that month, 2 pickups, 2 cars, 1 SUV/crossover. Seems like your version of reality certainly doesn't match new auto sales breakdowns, so there are obviously plenty of people with pickups to trade. You do realize that Ford and Chevy pickups are usually the sales leaders, and have been for decades, right? As far as your claim of who is, or is not, insured, well, 15% doesn't seem like the majority you are trying to sell.

What percentage of American cars are uninsured? | Answerbag

$4 gas 30 months ago led to the greatest financial crash since 1929. ... Imagine what $4-5 gas today will mean, DURING a recession?

The recession started in 12/2007. The peak gas price didn't hit until about July, 2008. Lets not pull the normal peaker nonsense of revisionist history please.

Oh, wait. You conceded it's a finite resource in another thread. Just that it's not a big deal.

Of course its a finite resource. People who have forgotten more about oil than you've ever known announced its demise to the world. In 1886. In Pittsburgh. What took you and the Keystone Cops of resources so long to notice?

Tell you what. I'll offer you a challenge, cool guy: When you can link to any of them reaching their previous peak light crude production output (and beyond) for a full annual average going forward, you'll have a point.

No point is required. Only someone who buys blindly into peaker dogma would ever subdivide oil into the stuff they like, and the stuff they don't like. Whats wrong with dividing it by "easy to get" and "hard to get"? Whats wrong with only counting the black oil versus the green? Does your discrimination against condensate count as a targeted bias, or are you just ignorant of the differences? If I drill an oilfield which is both onshore and offshore, do I only count the part which is drilled from land and ignore the rest? You guys have been doing this ridiculous game for so long, I wonder if you even know the reality you are in anymore.

As far as multiple peaks in general, thats easy of course. It took what, some 15 years to recover from the 1978/79 global oil peak and cause yet another one? How long do you think we need to wait this time? Maybe another 15?

Until then, and I'm supremely confident you'll never be able to provide it, your statement is utterly empty. Again.

Wrong again, but in all the usual places. They don't teach you about the multiple peaks in at Peaker-Dogma-University do they? Saudi Arabia peaked in 1980, and then again here just recently! 30 years between those ones. Those crazy Russians peaked in about 1984, and then did it all over again recently. The UAE peaked in about 1975, and then again in 1991, and then again in 2008 or so. Who would have guessed that one? No one using Hubbert's method, right?! Dare I mention Algeria, Nigeria, China, Malaysia, the UK, Kuwait, Canada, Mexico, perhaps we should leave Iran and Iraq out for now, the jury is still out on Iran, hard to tell with the sanctions and all.

Would you like to guess what portion of the worlds reserves DON'T follow Hubbert's curve? Considering your past confusion...I'll offer a hint....given the choices of MOST, or NOT MOST, its more likely to be most.

 

[Mr. H.]

I bought a couple of pin-on buttons at the mall today. They were in a shop full of 60's ish clothing and such. Two different styles, but they both say "No Offshore Oil Drilling"

The gal asked if I wanted a bag and I said "no thanks- I'm going to take them over there and throw them in the trash". She turned kind of pale.

I decided to keep them as trophies.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Should have taken the bags as well

 

[Mr. H.]

Should have taken the bags as well

Nah - I believe in "reduce, reuse, recycle".

 

[Big Fitz]

I believe that has become a fraud. BUT, if done because of economics, not morality, it's a good move.

 

[mdn2000]

I bought a couple of pin-on buttons at the mall today. They were in a shop full of 60's ish clothing and such. Two different styles, but they both say "No Offshore Oil Drilling"

The gal asked if I wanted a bag and I said "no thanks- I'm going to take them over there and throw them in the trash". She turned kind of pale.

I decided to keep them as trophies.

I wish you had as much money as the Liberals did when Obama got elected

 

[Mr. H.]

I bought a couple of pin-on buttons at the mall today. They were in a shop full of 60's ish clothing and such. Two different styles, but they both say "No Offshore Oil Drilling"

The gal asked if I wanted a bag and I said "no thanks- I'm going to take them over there and throw them in the trash". She turned kind of pale.

I decided to keep them as trophies.

I wish you had as much money as the Liberals did when Obama got elected

I doubt all the money in the world would have stemmed that tide.

But, all tides recede and this one's going out fast.

 

[mdn2000]

What the F do you think falling demand for gas/oil means for complex societies utterly based on growth?

Increased efficiency.

And when blue collar workers and small businesses can't afford the increased fuel costs and all the other costs that go along with it? Will they be "more efficient" by going out of business?

Whats your answer to these same people who cannot afford the energy from Wind Turbines, Solar, and Geothermal, that is happening today.

Without the lost of one drop of oil the advocates of Green Energy have created the scenario that you describe, so what is your answer.

 

[Old Rocks]

Poor little mnd and Walleyes just cannot stand the fact that the alternatives are now approaching more installed wattage every year than is coal and natural gas. And will soon far exceed the fossil fuels. Because they are coming down in price, while fossil fuels are going up in price.

 

[westwall]

Poor little mnd and Walleyes just cannot stand the fact that the alternatives are now approaching more installed wattage every year than is coal and natural gas. And will soon far exceed the fossil fuels. Because they are coming down in price, while fossil fuels are going up in price.

Wrong as usual olfraud. I am all in favour of alternative energy sources. I just want them to work and be as efficient as those we currently have. Without having to rip the American taxpayer off in the process. Every wind farm that is built exists solely because the American taxpayer is supporting it. That is a simple fact. Take away the taxpayer support and they fail. The same goes for solar as well. I think solar is a wonderful product for individual buildings and eventually may be useful in a powerplant scenario as well. It just isn't right now.

You as usual confuse dislike of the concept for dislike of how it is implemented and abused.

 

[TheTraveller]

Unless someone invests in using inefficient technologies, they won't develop. It doesn't have to be the government, but it had better be someone. Right now there's no real need for solar - what happens when peak oil hits?

 

[westwall]

Unless someone invests in using inefficient technologies, they won't develop. It doesn't have to be the government, but it had better be someone. Right now there's no real need for solar - what happens when peak oil hits?

Instead of taking money from the taxpayer. Filtering it through uncountable and un acountable bureaucrats, with all the waste fraud and corruption that entails, give any business involved in high tech research and green energy research a blanket cut of the taxes THEY have to pay. I would be totally in favour of them having to pay zero taxes to the government for them and their workers.

You want to make it possible for innovation to happen do that. Just giving them money with no need to compete and survive leads to fraud and waste. There is currently no real incentive to succed. The compaies know that the government is going to cover them no matter how badly they are run.

 

[JiggsCasey]

The recession started in 12/2007. The peak gas price didn't hit until about July, 2008. Lets not pull the normal peaker nonsense of revisionist history please.

That's not what I said, goalpost mover. I said the financial crash, NOT the start of the recession. ... OBVIOUSLY referring to the overextended stock markets, and their very specific plummet in Sept. of 2008.

Try and follow along.

No point is required. Only someone who buys blindly into peaker dogma would ever subdivide oil into the stuff they like, and the stuff they don't like. Whats wrong with dividing it by "easy to get" and "hard to get"? Whats wrong with only counting the black oil versus the green? Does your discrimination against condensate count as a targeted bias, or are you just ignorant of the differences? If I drill an oilfield which is both onshore and offshore, do I only count the part which is drilled from land and ignore the rest? You guys have been doing this ridiculous game for so long, I wonder if you even know the reality you are in anymore.

Recognizing their vastly greater costs is somehow "discrimination" against unconventional sources? LOL. Could you BE more pretentious when you misrepresent my point?

You can point to a mountain range that contains 50 trillion barrels of oil shale if you like. But if it costs 2 barrels to get every 5 barrels to market, it's going to do zero for the global economy. Get it yet?

As far as multiple peaks in general, thats easy of course. It took what, some 15 years to recover from the 1978/79 global oil peak and cause yet another one? How long do you think we need to wait this time? Maybe another 15?

Who claimed peak in 1978? What are you even talking about, straw man champion?

Wrong again, but in all the usual places. They don't teach you about the multiple peaks in at Peaker-Dogma-University do they? Saudi Arabia peaked in 1980, and then again here just recently! 30 years between those ones. Those crazy Russians peaked in about 1984, and then did it all over again recently. The UAE peaked in about 1975, and then again in 1991, and then again in 2008 or so. Who would have guessed that one? No one using Hubbert's method, right?! Dare I mention Algeria, Nigeria, China, Malaysia, the UK, Kuwait, Canada, Mexico, perhaps we should leave Iran and Iraq out for now, the jury is still out on Iran, hard to tell with the sanctions and all.

More goofiness supported by zero links backing up your vague claim. What are you even trying to say here? Let me know what the imaginary adversary in your head says in response to your made-up assertion of my position.

Who said Saudi peaked in 1980? Who said Russia peaked in 1984? Was it the IEA? The DoE? Were sovereign governments saying so, like they are today (Germany, England)?

When you're done arguing with yourself, I'll be in the other thread, dismantling your "same as it's always been" DOGMA.

See you there, genius.

 

[RGR]

The recession started in 12/2007. The peak gas price didn't hit until about July, 2008. Lets not pull the normal peaker nonsense of revisionist history please.

I said the financial crash, NOT the start of the recession. ... OBVIOUSLY referring to the overextended stock markets, and their very specific plummet in Sept. of 2008.
Try and follow along.

Sure. You are wrong. Spiking gas prices happened before the financial crash, and had nothing to do with it. Got it.

LOL. Could you BE more pretentious when you misrepresent my point?

Peakers don't have a point, their job is to scare people by manipulating data, predicting, over and over again, that the world will end because of peak oil....always FUTURE peak oils I might add...they, like you, don't like talking about the ones in the past when people claimed the same things and they never happened. Do you even know the HISTORY of your church, and the number of times actually HONEST people have advocated running out or peak scenarios?

You can point to a mountain range that contains 50 trillion barrels of oil shale if you like. But if it costs 2 barrels to get every 5 barrels to market, it's going to do zero for the global economy. Get it yet?

Of course I get it, you are the one who doesn't know anything. If it takes 2 barrels to get 5 to market I can make an absolute mint off that equation, every day for the rest of my life. Let me guess....you had a public school education, particularly in the math of what you just said?

Who claimed peak in 1978? What are you even talking about, straw man champion?

Nobody claimed peak, it HAPPENED. Did you miss it? Global oil production peaked...and declined..the world wrung its hands, we were running out by the end of the 80's, our President told us so...it was horrifying. What, you were hiding in your basement the entire time?

Needless to say...like other past peaks....humans went out, gathered up more oil, and created another one. Happens all the time, you would known that if your job wasn't to sell the church's current position rather than discuss resource depletion at a rational level.

More goofiness supported by zero links backing up your vague claim.

My claim was very specific. Your ignorance of your own theory is not my problem.

When you're done arguing with yourself, I'll be in the other thread, dismantling your "same as it's always been" DOGMA.

See you there, genius.

But of course. You should bring over some more members of your congregation, one of you coming out from underneath a rock is hardly worth the effort. Particularly considering how poorly you understand the information contained within your Bible.

 

[westwall]

The recession started in 12/2007. The peak gas price didn't hit until about July, 2008. Lets not pull the normal peaker nonsense of revisionist history please.

I said the financial crash, NOT the start of the recession. ... OBVIOUSLY referring to the overextended stock markets, and their very specific plummet in Sept. of 2008.
Try and follow along.

Sure. You are wrong. Spiking gas prices happened before the financial crash, and had nothing to do with it. Got it.



Peakers don't have a point, their job is to scare people by manipulating data, predicting, over and over again, that the world will end because of peak oil....always FUTURE peak oils I might add...they, like you, don't like talking about the ones in the past when people claimed the same things and they never happened. Do you even know the HISTORY of your church, and the number of times actually HONEST people have advocated running out or peak scenarios?



Of course I get it, you are the one who doesn't know anything. If it takes 2 barrels to get 5 to market I can make an absolute mint off that equation, every day for the rest of my life. Let me guess....you had a public school education, particularly in the math of what you just said?



Nobody claimed peak, it HAPPENED. Did you miss it? Global oil production peaked...and declined..the world wrung its hands, we were running out by the end of the 80's, our President told us so...it was horrifying. What, you were hiding in your basement the entire time?

Needless to say...like other past peaks....humans went out, gathered up more oil, and created another one. Happens all the time, you would known that if your job wasn't to sell the church's current position rather than discuss resource depletion at a rational level.

More goofiness supported by zero links backing up your vague claim.

My claim was very specific. Your ignorance of your own theory is not my problem.

When you're done arguing with yourself, I'll be in the other thread, dismantling your "same as it's always been" DOGMA.

See you there, genius.

But of course. You should bring over some more members of your congregation, one of you coming out from underneath a rock is hardly worth the effort. Particularly considering how poorly you understand the information contained within your Bible.

Well put. Jiggs doesn't really have a clue, and I agree with you 2 barrels to get 5 is pretty much a no brainer.

 

[RGR]

Well put. Jiggs doesn't really have a clue, and I agree with you 2 barrels to get 5 is pretty much a no brainer.

Yeah, talk about someone not knowing anything about the oil or gas business, or ANY business. I give you 2, you give me 5, we get rich fast!

 

[westwall]

Well put. Jiggs doesn't really have a clue, and I agree with you 2 barrels to get 5 is pretty much a no brainer.

Yeah, talk about someone not knowing anything about the oil or gas business, or ANY business. I give you 2, you give me 5, we get rich fast!

Well, as you so aptly put it, when the belief is based on faith you don't need to know anything.

 

[TheTraveller]

Unless someone invests in using inefficient technologies, they won't develop. It doesn't have to be the government, but it had better be someone. Right now there's no real need for solar - what happens when peak oil hits?

Instead of taking money from the taxpayer. Filtering it through uncountable and un acountable bureaucrats, with all the waste fraud and corruption that entails, give any business involved in high tech research and green energy research a blanket cut of the taxes THEY have to pay. I would be totally in favour of them having to pay zero taxes to the government for them and their workers.

You want to make it possible for innovation to happen do that. Just giving them money with no need to compete and survive leads to fraud and waste. There is currently no real incentive to succed. The compaies know that the government is going to cover them no matter how badly they are run.

I can sympathize with your sense that the government is inefficient. Yet, do you really think the market will work on this one by itself? I think peak oil is a serious problem, and the US lags behind Europe in preparedness for oil shortages.

What do you think about the military as a branch of government capable of solving the problem? The US military has always been a source of a lot of applied technology.