We are at the peak in world oil production...

X cuse are certain body parts!!!!!

Everybody Has one....I use a phone

And your the only one whiner forty niner I hear about it .

 

That is the dichotomy is this debate

They been claiming this nonsense

For ever now ...and we still bee runnin off the black gold

 

It will bring about even less demand

Even though Americans are @ a 17 yr. Low for fuel demand

 

Oh, now you are asking EASY questions. Because I use electricity to commute to work and round town, the price of gasoline, today, tomorrow, next week, really doesn't concern me at all.

You aren't seriously suggesting that someone as well informed about peak oil as yourself is still relying on GASOLINE to fulfill your day to day transport needs, are you?

 

Like we knew during the rationing of the 70's? The rationing during WWII? The great gasoline scare of 1916?

Running low happens, and doesn't require peak oil as a pretext any more than high prices do.

 

Granny says, "Dat's right...

... purt soon some o' dem oil wells gonna start suckin' up sand...

... den what we gonna do?

 

Again, you keep telling yourself such.

You're completely out of bullets on this defense. I've provided both my own prose, as well as experts confirming my own prose. You faking that you can't understand what I've written isn't saving you at all. It's a tired ploy that denialists much more talented than you have used for 5-6 years now.

"The hope is that by" responding to smaller and smaller portions of my posts, you can cover for the fact that you have absolutely no argument, and still no basic grasp of the term net energy, despite it being spelled out for your some half-dozen times by now.

The projection here is priceless. No real need to address this above, considering you have absolutely no answer for the numerous direct challenges put to you on this issue.

Peak oil, as normal people (who have a clue) understand it, has never happened before. Again, you don't get to redefine the term as it suits your "nothing to see here" agenda.

You were challenged to point to a source that claims unconventional production can ever rise above even a mere 5 million bpd, and you wussed out. Mainly because no one reputable claims it's possible.

Again, I can allude to "finding" a trillion barrels of oil behind the moon. That doesn't make it economically viable to get it to market. But that concept doesn't compute for well-to-do junior Friedman's like you, because you are certain that the rest of the world can adapt to higher prices as easily as you have while living behind your plush gated community.

Get back to me when you learn the difference between charts that track crude and condensate, and charts that track "all liquids."

For the 57th time: We are at 89 million barrels today due to ever-more expensive CRAP oil. It's a paradigm that has stretched the global economy to it's maximum, and perpetuated the global credit crisis. I can assure you that the C+C production has barely moved since 2005. That is a major problem that you just don't seem capable of getting your thick head around, no matter how many unlinked charts you try to provide that allow you to hide.

Either way, both theoildrum.com and peak-oil-crisis.com support MY argument entirely. NOT yours. So it's pretty lol-tastic that you relied on a peak oil source to portray an argument they're not actually saying at all.

LOL!!!!! You seem to have yourself confused with another. That's what precisely what YOU do.

Anyhow, sunshine, here's the data that matters. It's from our very own U.S. Dept. of Energy's EIA:


http://seekingalpha.com/article/246748-global-oil-production-update

See how I did that? See how I actually provided the source and link to the claim I attempt to make? You should give it a try some time.

You're still not explaining how/why the International Energy Agency joined the Pentagon, German/British/Australian governments in admitting that global crude production peaked in 2006. You're avoiding that direct challenge, because you know that in order to do so, you need to redefine the data, and you realize your dumb mind tricks don't work on this poster.

 

You do realize that chart shows it peaking in the middle of 2008, right? And that it's climbing again at the end of the chart.

 

You do realize you're trying to refute a long-term set of data by way of painfully short-term semantics? It's about annual production average.

This is your response? Seriously?

 

Well, you're welcome to provide any retractions since then from any of those entities. You won't find them.

I'd say a mere two years ago isn't that outdated for a problem 125 years in the making. I chose them because that's when those - the most relevant entities in the world for this issue - finally came out about them.

It's the same claim from 2005, genius. One that you haven't refuted beyond "I don't feel it, because my lights are still on!" Meanwhile, $15 trillion in global corporate welfare ever since tells a very different story than the "nothing to see here" ruse you're trying to play.

No, what's been going on for decades is intellectually dishonest people like you creating straw men and pretending peak advocates claimed things that they never actually argued. You can't even get the peak argument correct, so it's hardly surprising you'd try and morph our argument into something you can spin.

Facts and reality that you continue to run from. Make no mistake about it: All facts and reality concerning this issue are on MY side, not yours. Including, and especially, a world economic system on the brink. When you acknowledge what net energy means and why it's important, you might be able to claim you grasp the facts and reality of this debate. But you've shown over and over again that you don't.

 

Obviously, these kinds of concerns don't matter to contributors like "profit." His "lights are still on," so obviously it's not a problem.

In his mind, the rising prices are artificial, and Big Oil/Speculators/Evil Arabs are all in on the conspiracy to cripple municipal budgets... Makes sense

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REx58Fv7dCk"]Record Gas Prices Hurting America's Towns - YouTube[/ame]

 

My god, has oil peaked...again? Deja vu all over again. Oh, and the world collapsed due to overpopulation thirty years ago. Missed it, didn't you?

 

While your claims of clairyvoyant are amusing, it simply reveals your inability to understand A) the history of prior claims resembling your own, B) what oil is, and C) your actual point.

Get back to me when you understand that you put gasoline in your fuel tank derived from all these things, and more, and haven't complained a single bit about doing it, and in fact don't even want to discuss it because it invalidates your entire point.

Thanks for showing only a subset of the liquids we use to make gasoline to put in our fuel tanks.

It is more accurate to use everything we use for fuels, but no one has ever claimed that peak oilers can face the reality of how easy it is to make fuels from all sorts of things.

Notice the NEW (again) peak oil just in the past few months! Ladies and gentlemen, I introduce to you the NEXT peak oil!! TA-DA!!!!

 

My dear astute observer...you are correct!!! Worse yet, what Jiggsy doesn't want you to see is the most recent data. Let us take a look at it.



Notice by censoring the time frame (something peakers are famous for) Jiggsy is not faced with revealing that even his favorite subset of actual fuel production...IS INCREASING!!!! Not a decline, no longer a plateau, but yet another increase to an all time high, thereby negating the entire plateau concept, the peak concept, and just about everything else he copies and pastes from the prophets of Doom. Fun to watch sometimes, but more than a little lacking in intellectual rigor and honesty.

 

Again, pot, meet kettle.

 

Yes it's my response. If you're talking about peak oil production over the course of a period of time, you're completely ignoring the drop that occurred in 2009 as the world's economies were in a downfall. That drop had nothing to do with reaching any kind of limit and was completely based on economic factors. At best, you don't have enough data to make any kind of claims here until you can measure another stretch of time without external problems affecting the production.

 

Yikes Jiggsy, this statement would lead many of us to believe that you need your meds checked. Doesn't your psychiatrist get a little concerned when your reality differs so much from the one he (and the rest of us) are familiar with?

 

Yeah, we aren't supposed to notice. A fundamental assumption of the peaker sales job is that everyone else is dumber than they are, can't read, can't think, can't read history books, etc etc.

 

With the beating you've been taking on this issue for some 8 or 9 pages now, that rationale above probably sounds soothing to claim within your empty head, but down here in reality: A) is irrelevant to what's being claimed, B) is painfully amusing projection and C) is your bit of desperation.

This from a poster who still doesn't understand the importance of energy density.

LOL... I am getting back to you. Time and time again. I keep getting back to you regarding issues you just don't seem willing to be honest about. Unfortunately you're either too limited in thought, or so invested in willful nonsense that you can't bare to back down now.

Ignorance or dishonesty, I'm often not sure which is worse ... and sometimes they are hard to differentiate from. You appear to exhibit both traits.

Let's get something clear, PP: There's nothing about this topic I'm not happy to discuss when time permits. So pretending I'm avoiding your irrelevant "yeah, buts" is laughable. You're not fooling anyone.

Wow... OK, so I guess your point here is that we make gasoline from all these forms of carbon liquids (which technically is incorrect, but I'll avoid hair-splitting, as you won't know the difference). More deep thinking on your part. Miss the point much?

The issue is price point, and this topic is about far more than just gasoline. This fact has been spelled out to you numerous times now. The price of oil affects the price of just about everything in the world, from your grocery bill to municipal budgets to multi-national investment banks' leverage. You would find this self-evident if you had even a rudimentary understanding of what we're actually talking about here.

This isn't about what we CAN make gasoline (etc.) with. It's what it will COST to make gasoline (etc.) with them.

Your inability to acknowledge that high oil prices adversely affect global markets shows - beyond any liberal sense of doubt - that I'm debating with an amateur. At least on this issue. It's ok, no hard feelings. Maybe you're informed and deep when it comes to other topics. ... Just not this one. CLEARLY.

More of the same. "Easy" meaning cheap? Because that's the main issue we're covering. You get this, yes? ... Oh wait, are you still clinging to the narrative that this 600% price increase in just 12 years is artificial? LOL

Why are you absolutely never willing to provide a link verifying where you are posting your chart from? Makes you look ever more dishonest. Denialist sites do a lot of creating image crunching/stretching with EIA data. You appear to be working off one, going back a whole four years!!!

Again, as has been explained to you at least 6 other times now: That is a chart showing "all liquids," ... including the top tiny growth portion of which is made up of immensely more costly, heavy unconventional sources (tar sands, shale oil/gas, deepwater) that you keep crowing about. If you provided a wider timeline, you wouldn't be able to fake it like you are. While C+C production is flat, even the "all liquids" gain since 2005 is pretty flat. Growth requires a much steeper incline, as was proven in at least one of the short videos you were too cool to actually watch. This is a perfect example of why you're that rare combination of dishonest and uninformed.

You mean like you just did in the passage above???? LOL!!!!!

Fail. LOL!!!

Because once again, no link. Not even a source of the figures in the footnotes of the image. Is this EIA? IEA? UN? IMF? Is it past tense, or a forecast from some earlier point in time? Is it consumption, production or demand? Is it actual C+C? Does it include bitumen?... Hard to tell. ... A link would let anyone verify what the chart actually refers to. ... But this way, by not sourcing your work, you can pretend some entity out there is claiming that we're at 75.3 mbd of crude production for 2011, and thus carry on the semantics charade for your dumb definition of what peak even means.

Here is the point where it's officially game over for you. When it gets so bad that you champion ignorance, self-congratulate over your own dishonesty, and then pretend I'm the delusional one regarding fact.

You are officially the dumbest poster I've even had the peak oil discussion with. And there's been a whole lot of them.

It's really no assumption at all. You reinforce the certainty with each successively dim-witted response. Not only "can't" you read, you REFUSE to read. Nor watch. And then you buttress your arrogant ignorance with easily falsifiable claims and the tactic of dishonesty by way of omission.

PP, you're pretty horrible at this subject. Amusing in that with just 94 posts, all in here, you joined this forum for the express purpose of spewing about the energy equation.

I'm gonna challenge you for an 8th time, and maybe you'll be a man and actually attempt it for once: Please provide a short essay on your view of a world (or just the U.S.) with permanent $120+ oil. $150? $200? Will it affect food price? Keep municipal budgets in the black? Will it make export/import tariffs skyrocket? How about unemployment? ....Or do you see the wondrous global free markets able to absorb it all? If so, how? What IS growth to you?

Please put the final nail in your own coffin. I can't wait to read your response.

 

Mind-bogglingly, laughably wrong.

Overlooking your painful tendency of grunching, but as I've stated before in this thread: Cheap, abundant energy dictates to the markets, not the other way around. ... Not only have I shown (throughout the first page, but especially post #2 from the Australian government, and in the video below from post #47) how rising oil price throughout the last decade DIRECTLY led to the credit/debt bubble of 2007 forward, ... but most every recession since WWII has come on the heels of an oil price shock. To claim the reverse is the very epitomy of epistemic closure.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zIbOBgDChA"]Colin Campbell predicts financial crisis - YouTube[/ame]

Further, the "drop" in demand, and thus the sharp drop in price, was precisely the RAMIFICATIONS of peak oil (albeit a first wave); NOT a refutation of it. If/when the world economy spins back into recession (and it will), the price could easily fall again. Such short-term volatility is the sign of a very sick global economy, and does far more for my argument than it does your own apparent "nothing to see here" agenda. There's a well-established term for such volatility, it's called "the bumpy plateau," and it could last 4-5 more years. As the title of the thread says, we are AT peak. It does not claim we are past it. It's bumpy at the top, but the long-term annual median is running along the apex of global crude and condensate production. Period, end of story.

As for data and "at best," I have pretty much ALL the data at this point. New discoveries are NOT keeping up with dying existing capacity.

There is only one substitute for cheap energy... and it's more expensive energy. If you can show me how the world can continue to function and grow the same with $150+ oil and all that it brings to global investment capital, please flesh it out. For the life of him, PP can't seem to, and he desperately needs someone to pick up the baton for him.

 

The following supports my claim that discoveries have plummeted:


http://gregor.us/fossil-fuels/old-oil-depletes-and-the-new-oil-is-slow/
(via Exxon-Mobil data)

The following counters PP's vague chart, showing C+C production... it features a wider timeline than he was willing to show... it also doesn't hide where the data comes from (EIA), unlike his:


http://gregor.us/

Supply, and the recognition of supply, are now the dominant factor in the oil price. A point so obvious, it hardly seems worth making. However, the developed world is still largely operating on the classical economic view that higher prices will make new oil resources available.

That is true. But, it’s just not true in the way most anticipate.

While higher prices have brought on new supply, these resources have been slow to develop, are more difficult to extract, and generally flow at lower rates of production. As the older oil fields of the world decline, the price of oil must reflect the economics of this new tranche of oil resources. There are no vast, new supplies of oil that will come online in 2013, 2014, and 2015 at the scale to negate existing global declines.​

 

From http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9e1ccb48-781c-11e1-b237-00144feab49a.html

 

Most of the hysterics don't know anything at all about the oil business... and energy brokers get rich predicting scarcity.

 

Why in the world would I even attempt such a thing when the challenge is coming from someone without the ability to argue their own points?

You don't understand your own claims, can't provide any independent thought on the topic without resorting to videos or statements which are temporally inconsistent or completely irrelevant to your claim of peak oil production being now (versus the other times peakers claimed their rapture event was happening) and in general are so repetitive you could be mistaken for a bot.

 

This man predicted peak oil in 1989.

Can you please explain why his previously disproven worldview is of any more value than Harold Campings?