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

Such an observation applies to nearly all peak oilers as well. Matt Simmons, he of "methane is a toxic gas!" fame (and obviously unfamiliar with the nasty side effects of eating beans for dinner) being one of the more prominent examples.

 

Because you are completely incapable of understanding how energy dictates to the world markets, despite it being explained to you a half dozen times now.

Riiiiiight, you keep saying this. Yet when asked what I "don't understand" about them, you can't seem to flesh it out.

Well, besides for the multiple times I have done just that. LOL

You inability to understand the subject material presented by men much smarter than you is your own problem. Pretending they don't underline my thesis perfectly isn't saving your drowned argument. Face it, you're a beaten poster. It's so bad for you that you've fallen back to your last rampart: Pretending my sources don't say what I'm saying. Ooops, wrong again.

This coming from a deep thinker who simply can not atone for a 600% increase in price, and what it means for the world economy.

You are boiled frog syndrome, personified. At what point does the ongoing meltdown of the global economy become an undeniable aspect of this debate for you? Only when it affects your gated community, right, Mr. Romney?

Actually, he predicted the late 90s for plateau, so he was off by perhaps 6 years, at best. You still have a real problem differentiating between C+C and all liquids, mainly because you can't actually think. Regardless, the man's been right about far, far more than he's been "wrong" (with "wrong" being rather subjective). ... Your argument is like some jackass in the 1990s scoffing at analysts who were insisting we'd be attacked on our own shores. Can your dumb "nothing to see here" team afford to keep ignoring a geological certainty?

Either way, the data today is FAR more sound, including the nosedive of discovery rates, and factor you've run from entirely.

Your propensity for being so literal with short-term spikes shows you're too dumb to understand what we're actually talking about. It's like a conservative insisting climate change isn't real due to one day of snow in mid-April. Miss the point much?

The "difference" is the ever-rising price, genius. An aspect at the core of this debate that you either too dumb, or too cowardly, to acknowledge.

 

Nice post ignoranus

Have you ever been wrong about anything ever

 

You EXPLAIN nothing. You make a claim, and then try and reference other claims which are nothing but repeats of your own claim, and you do not apply a single seconds critical thought to any of it.

I recommend more independent thinking, and less of what you call "explaining". Of course, once you start applying a little critical thinking, it becomes difficult to stop, and next thing you know, you actually KNOW something.

Want to generate a little credibility? Tell us why those "much smarter than me" men were predicting peak oil, possibly before your birth, and why your claims today are any different, or more accurate, than theirs.

Come on Jiggsy, apply a neuron, fire off a new synapse, THINK. I promise, it won't hurt...much.

Colin Campbell predicted peak oil in 1989, at a rate of approximately 60 mb/day. His prediction for production rates in 2012 was approximately 30 mb/day.

Can you please explain the discrepancy between his "smarter than us" predictions and the actual reality of production for the small subset of oil production which you appear to be fascinated with?

 

Are you kidding? The guy isn't even aware of the background of his tube sensation sources, the question is more whether or not he has ever been right. Or were you being sarcastic? Admittedly, he deserved that as well, but his belief system is as impervious to sarcasm as it is to facts. History. Reality. Just about anything really.

 

Like some people, I believe he forms his conclusion and then bases his facts off of that conclusion, instead of finding the facts and basing his conclusion off of them like most people with a desire to be taken seriously would.

This is just my opinion, but I think maybe he's just a little scared. He WANTS you to prove him wrong, but his paranoia is hard to break through, and paranoia is never logical and fact based.

 

Ii was being sarcastic

He does make very good points

Tho I tend believe in your side. More

 

ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now there's some irony.

It's you three, the denialist trio, that are terrified. This is clear because of your transparent rejection of facts, most especially long-term price increase that you can no longer chalk up to "war fears" and "speculators."

The facts on my side, if any of you chose to attempt to counter them, are obvious and unrelenting:

- oil price affects the price of almost everything in the world
- global conventional crude production has barely moved for 7 years
- the price is up some 600% in 10-12 years
- unconventionals are 3x more expensive to extract and refine
- discoveries have nose-dived for over 30 years

My God, I mean, just look at the latest Time magazine piece:

those heroic discoveries are occurring around the world, from the deepwater finds off Brazil to the North Dakota tight oil that has led to a resurgence of American crude production. There are oil sands in Canada and new resources in the melting waters of the Arctic. There will be oil—and that may be the problem.

MORE: The Big Republican Lie on Gas Prices

That’s because the new supplies are for the most part more expensive than traditional oil from places like the Middle East—sometimes significantly so. They are often dirtier, with a greater risk of more devastating spills and accidents. The decline of major conventional oil fields—coupled with the rapidly rising demand from countries like China and India—means the spare production capacity that once cushioned prices is melting away, ushering in an era of volatile market swings.
​

Read more: http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2012/03/29/there-will-be-oil-and-thats-the-problem/#ixzz1qdZid7wD

So we can add mainstream journalists to the cabal of conspirators I guess. Along with the IEA, the Pentagon, the EIA, the IMF, the German gov., the British gov., the Autralian gov, ASPO, Oxford Univ., Virgin Group, Total Oil of France, etc., etc. ....

again, why are these people lying? For what gain? Where did they meet to get their story straight? How did it manage to not leak all these years later?

There are five stages of grief. Some people simply can NOT get themselves out of the first two - denial and anger. You, PP-RGR and the incoherent Sweetdaddy dude are perfect examples.

 

An interesting hypothesis. It implies he has the capability to change, and once someone is this deep into their belief system, there is no certainty they will ever allow reality to interfere with it.

 

I do not have a side. But I do prefer a reasoned examination of all information involved prior to making an informed decision. True believers, Rapturists, salesmen, internet bots (whatever bin Jiggsy fits into) do not tend to appreciate others thinking for themselves. In Jiggsy's case, he doesn't even understand the technical aspects of his own topic, knows nothing about the history of his sales pitch and how those who came before him screwed the pooch, and then randomly tries to link his topic to everyone else's in some random, as yet not understood way.

 

Who said they were lying?

"New breakthroughs are increasing US oil supplies"

Isn't being 40 years post peak supposed to mean that oil supply is going down? Or does even the nuance of up...and down..... escape your "dear god how does your brain even have enough power to keep your heart beating" attention?

 

If you get anything other than progressive socialist agenda outta of them times magazine
mark it down In stone tablets

Call genius book of world records

And lastly notify the library of congress

 

I just don't believe man has figured everything out

Unlike some who think they have........I. have alittle thing

Called skepticism about man knowning everything

And. Mans ability too adapt too changes

Like if the world runs out of oil

Somebody somewhere will find an alternative

 

Absolutely. But once someone understands what oil is primarily used for, and how much of it is wasted doing those things, it becomes obvious we don't have to wait around for alternatives at all, because they are already here.

Here is mine during the nicer months of the year:



and something else when the weather is more problematic.

 

It's like you're championing ignorance to a whole new level. You sound more retarded with each response. I'm starting to think sweetdaddy has more knowledge of this issue than you. Pretty sad.

We are producing barely half of what we used to, and at 900% higher price from our domestic peak of 40 years ago. A minor and temporary uptick due to exponentially more expensive crap oil doesn't change the equation that way you hope it will.

At some point in this debate, Mitt, you'll actually attempt to acknowledge that high prices matter for people not in your plush gated community.

Nothing displays just how much of an idiot you are better than this non-sequitur above.

That's your whole problem. You have a "childishly simple" understanding of this entire topic.

1) a cowardly non-answer, as I expected.... you don't actually say where because you have no idea where ...
2) another hollow non-answer... basically you're advocating the dumb premise of: "so what if prices have to rise higher than the average consumer can afford ... the supply-side economics are there to dig deeper!... to hell with demand!"
3) translation: "oil has different grades?"

but it takes a special fool to pretend ever higher price increase doesn't matter. Population: you.

Well, let's see. What "others?" .... I can see no one on this sub-forum has said anything like what I have. I have zero illusions that this material makes me a pariah much more than it makes me feel "included." So, your perfect record of being wrong about everything remains intact. As for changing dates, I have not wavered one iota from 2005 as the date I believe we reached conventional peak production, and convention crude oil being the spine of the overall energy equation, that helps explain the 600% increase in oil price as we've leaned on ever-more expensive methods of maintaining the growth curve. It will get worse, and you'll continue to be clueless.

My gawd, are you ever horrible at this, profit. You don't think oil from shale is any different than sweet light crude, you don't think price matters merely because you were in a traffic jam today, and you think peak is not worth preparing for because one man was slightly off the mark in his time-line. You're like a sports better who thinks an 80% rate of predicting games is a failure.

Once again, you're a cornucopian. And cornucopians have no idea what they're talking about on this issue because you all reject basic arithmetic.

 

Cherry picking your data and timeframes is expected. Why do you do it if your idea has any merit?

My understanding of the topic comes from the originator of it, not the johnie come lately imitators or their near incoherent cheerleaders. Please show me where your ideas were expressed by Hubbert, rather than manufactured recently. Here is the document. I couldn't find his comments on how geologically based oil production had much to do with global banking? Could you show me where this might be?

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/13630

And Hubbert. Apparently "making it up as they go along" is normal for you peak oilers? Why is that?

You don't know what I think because apparently you can't read very well. Otherwise you would exactly why consumers don't give a rats behind about the origin of the gasoline they put in their tanks, the real price of crude being the same as it has been at various times in the past isn't as important as you assume (and certainly Hubbert never claimed) and peak oils come and go and only the peak oilers themselves don't seem to notice.

On a related note, commuting to and from work without using gasoline means I rarely am as concerned with the price of fuel as Jiggsy would have us believe, but I now care as well! of course, at 100+ mpg, the cost of commuting still doesn't seem all that high. For all your whining and moaning Jiggsy, have you taken ANY steps to mitigate against current gasoline prices, or do you just specialize in fear mongering others, hoping to find others as gullible so you won't feel so alone?

 

You mean like you've been doing? Especially the claim you presented that says C+C production is up around 76 mbpd

Between the two of us, sunshine, my time line is routinely far wider than is yours. Could you BE more of a hypocrite?

They are somehow mutually exclusive? Hubbert and the others? .... You realize, deep thinker, it is a refined theory, yet exhaustively sourced, and empirically researched. Yours is based on none of that. Yours is based on hope and the "way things have always been," and nothing more. Certainly not actual arithmetic. Your entire argument rejects known math. That's what so funny dealing with you morons.

Sure, no problem, deep thinker:

Hubbert on monetary policy: "The world's present industrial civilization is handicapped by the coexistence of two universal, overlapping, and incompatible intellectual systems: the accumulated knowledge of the last four centuries of the properties and interrelationships of matter and energy; and the associated monetary culture which has evolved from folkways of prehistoric origin. Despite their inherent incompatibilities, these two systems during the last two centuries have had one fundamental characteristic in common, namely, exponential growth, which has made a reasonably stable coexistence possible. But, for various reasons, it is impossible for the matter-energy system to sustain exponential growth for more than a few tens of doublings, and this phase is by now almost over. The monetary system has no such constraints, and, according to one of its most fundamental rules, it must continue to grow by compound interest. This disparity between a monetary system which continues to grow exponentially and a physical system which is unable to do so leads to an increase with time in the ratio of money to the output of the physical system. This manifests itself as price inflation. A monetary alternative corresponding to a zero physical growth rate would be a zero interest rate. The result in either case would be large-scale financial instability."​

I'm not sure what you're trying to allude to here, deep thinker. I'd say Hubbert most certainly DID think price increase mattered.

What do you feel I'm "making up as I go along?" Do you even understand what it is we're talking about here, or are you continuing to argue with a straw man for a topic you obviously have very limited understanding of? This is getting really embarrassing for you, but you're too dumb to realize how uninformed you sound.

No, they care about the price, as we've covered at least three times now. Get it yet? Are you drunk when you post?

Clever of you. The real price "at various times" translates to "for a few months, 30 years ago" (due to man-made conflict), then right back to normal. .... This is about long-term trend, and that trend is up, up, up... whether we're talking about nominal OR real prices. Liar.

Tell you what. Let's make a bet right now, shall we? If the world ever produces 95 million barrels (all liquids) per day, I'll leave the forum. However, if world production falls for a full year-over-year period, then YOU gtfu. Sound fair? I mean, you seem so confident we're not at peak.

Dude, you simply can not write well. What in God's name are you actually trying to say here?

Numerous steps, you great champion of ignorance.

You realize this debate is about far, FAR more than your own carbon footprint, yes? Either way, I have little doubt I use much less fossil fuel than goofy you.

 

You don't understand what you are talking about. Sure, the theory was refined, and used to predict peak oil in 1989. Hardly a refinement when you miss by 2 decades, versus how much Hubbert missed by. It has nothing to do with exhaustively sourced when the likes of claimed it happened in 2005. Then 2006. Then 2008. And now 2012. Make up your mind already. And empirical research shows that bell shaped curves have never characterized production profiles for any majority of oil production at the country scale. Get a clue.

Please reference this text in his seminal peak oil work previously provided. Hubbert was a Technocrat, he believed in replacing energy with money. But he didn't bring his political beliefs into his peak oil, geologically based paper. Don't you know ANYTHING about this guy?

Then show where he mentioned it within the concept of peak oil as described in the paper which kick started your religious beliefs.

The price was just as high during the American Civil War halfwit. The long term trend is that real crude prices started high, dropped, became "cheap" with the discovery of east texas field in 1930 or so, and stayed there until cheap oil ended in 1970. Understand that halfwit? You have been RAISED in an environment of non-cheap oil. Oil then skyrocketed back to its original high during global peak oil in 1979, and is high now. 150 years is some short term trend to you is it? Learn your data better. You can just as easily cherry pick the price decrease from 1979 into 1986 and declare oil should have been free by 1987.

How can a web bot ever be made to shut up? Can you please put us in contact with your programmer, maybe it would be reasonable to make a bet with them?

 

Yeah, that's about what I thought you'd respond with, coward. Unwilling to meet the challenge put to you, you'd rather continue to muddy the waters and re-qualify your "prove it more" strategy every time I crush your laughable assertions.

"So? show where he said it in the paper I provided!"

Holy crap are you horrible at this, deep thinker.

 

Beating on your chest and substituting that for knowing (1) much about your own topic or (2) the ability to think critically can hardly be defined as "crushing" anything. Particularly when your challenges aren't about peak oil, but what appears to be a fanciful assemblage of conspiracy, financial claims and overall confusion between what oil is, what it is used for, how it can be made from other items, and why any of those points matter.

Do you know ANYTHING about peak oil, or only what you can copy and paste from academic sources such as utube videos, various talking heads and those who predicted peak oil a generation ago?

 

You're a beaten poster, prophet. Your argument entirely rests on the rationalization that you can still comfortably fill your tank. You're a soft-science disciple (market finance) trying to argue about a geological issue. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and now you're projecting your own profound shortcomings for understanding this subject matter.

I've linked to experts supporting my argument, I've offered my own painfully clear prose, I've dissected your dumb arguments, I've offered charts, quotes, graphs, videos, metaphor, and on and on. You're the one with the mental blockage on this issue, not me.

If you had ANY conviction whatsoever, you'd gleefully take my bet. But you aren't even sure of your own argument, so instinct tells you to run from the challenge. It's what you do.

Stop projecting, stop punting to data from 60 years ago, be honest for once about what is being said today, and explain how all the men quoted in that first page are wrong. Don't say "because Hubbert was wrong!! <bacaw!!>" over and over again. You're not answering the questions you keep running from. If there was plenty of cheap oil, and there is no supply shortage, why is the Pentagon and the IEA and the IMF saying otherwise? Are the best and brightest minds just dumb like you? Or lying to us all? How/why are they allowed to keep being wrong/lying? For what benefit would they be lying? How are they wrong? .... When does gas price become a problem for well-to-do arrogant jerks who can't empathize with the plight of the planet overall? At $4? $6? $10?

I'll re-iterate the thesis so you can 1) continue to learn as you go along, and 2) can't keep squawking that I don't understand the subject matter, without looking painfully retarded yourself:

The global peaking of crude oil production has happened somewhere between 2005-2008. This triggered the financial crisis in a banking sector which had a pre-condition of accumulated debt. The inevitable recession that followed has damaged the economy, making it harder to respond to the evolving energy crisis. The root cause for the global financial crisis was and still is the untested assumption of perpetual economic growth, an almost religious belief that fueled investments to underpin such growth, the use of accumulating debt to finance it and the slowly dawning realization that such growth could not and cannot happen due to high oil prices and limited oil production.

 

Incorrect, but not a surprise considering your inability to think for yourself, let alone your betters. My "argument", if you insist on calling it that, is nothing more than an observation demanding an explanation from anyone who claims we are running out/peak oil/Malthusian nonsense.

What is different THIS time, than the other times when people proclaimed the same thing? How do you know, and how do you show us regular folks, that this time, unlike all the others, you are actually right?

You see what I mean? Make up your (*)(*)(*)(*) mind already, either the peak of production is happening (again) NOW, or it happened a few years back. I realize WHY you don't like to use fuel availability as a measure of the consequences of this historical event (because certainly it is difficult to contradict reality) but make up your mind already. And then explain how your claim that peak in 2012 means ANYTHING, rather than contradicting the very first sentence of your windup. DECIDE already.