+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 10 of 54 FirstFirst ... 6789101112131420 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 533

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

  1. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeakProphet View Post
    The topic is peak oil, if your POINT is that you don't like financial hijinks in the global economy, why didn't you just use THAT as the title to this thread? Certainly peak oil, past, present or future, is one thing, and because of the value of oil as a commodity, any change in how it is used will cause side effects and attendant whining and moaning by those who don't want to. But confusing the normal results of change with greed, financial shenanigans, bad tax and regulatory policy, would seem to require a new topic.
    You are a beaten poster. I can tell you'd like to extract yourself from this debate now, but you can't really find a way and still save face. You have so much bluster invested at this point that you just can't stop digging despite being stuck in a hole. You sense something is terribly wrong with your argument, but you're still not sure what it is, and you're not sure how to proceed.

    Poor "prophet." You just don't get it, do you? Your brain won't allow you to see, and your stubbornness helps you avoid the material presented plain as day.

    What a sadness.

    It won't do any good, but despite explaining it to you some 3 or 4 times now, and providing others who've explained it 3 or 4 times now, I'll hold your hand one more time through the process.

    Complex industrial societies EXIST because of cheap energy. Not the other way around. The requirement to print up all that money is directly BECAUSE mankind's net energy production has been falling for many decades now. The promise of "ever more tomorrow" has ended. The easy fields are plucked, pretty much everywhere. All that remain are ones that are far harder to harvest. Over leveraged investment banks no longer have that illusion of collateral. Further, with that enormous new energy bill, the loss in global discretionary spending (to the tune of trillions of dollars as oil price rises) cripples markets and municipal budgets. Whether you prefer to look at real or adjusted oil prices, it's the same unsustainable paradigm. What matters for growth is return on investment: Or how much energy and capital you must expend to get energy to market that does the work for complex societies. The lower that ratio, the more growth slows to a halt. It used to be 100:1 in the good ole days, and we've squandered it for decades. Now, it's closer to 8:1. That "abundant" unconventional crap you crow about? Returns about 3:1. Complex societies require considerably more than that, or they begin to wear down.

    Of course, if you actually watched the short film provided to you, you'd understand that fact, spelled out in fairly rudimentary terms. But nope, you acted like you couldn't be bothered to watch (or read) anything, so you could maintain your nay-saying, "nothing-to-see-here" platform.

    I'm sure you'll try and fake your way out of it again by way of "What's your point? - you don't explain it good enough for me - I'm too cool to read your link." It's the only thing keeping you afloat at this point.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeakProphet View Post
    I understand all sorts of things.
    Perhaps. But almost nothing that pertains to this topic, clearly.

    What's amusing is that you joined this forum for the express purpose of playing the denial role on THIS issue and THIS issue alone, and you've managed to be exposed as having an extremely limited understanding of the energy/economy symbiosis. That's gotta be embarrassing.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeakProphet View Post
    And note that all the things you mention are happening all the time, why are they important to you only NOW?
    This is a serious assessment? When was the last time the global economy tipped this close to collapse all at once? These kinds of world events have always been important to me. Some of us have been heralding that the bill on this predicament was due for over 12 years, others far longer.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeakProphet View Post
    I was around and kicking when aggregate decline happened LAST time. I have news...I didn't need a wall then, and you are making my point. What makes THIS time important?
    There was no last time. You're comparing a geological and mathematical certainty (today) to a man-made dispute that led to a very short-term price shock (1970s). It's apples to oranges. No, worse. It's bread to oranges.

    What makes it important THIS TIME is that we're not discovering any new significant fields of crude any more. Not for 30-40 years now. If you watched the short video you'd understand that, as provided by the EIA and USGS. But you couldn't be bothered. You're an excellent dancer.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeakProphet View Post
    Your inability to state your own point, relying on random internet material and talking heads to try and do it for you, is quite telling.
    That's what you need to tell yourself, beaten and out of bullets as you are. The reality is that I've spelled it out quite clearly multiple times now, and only resorted to a video teaching aid when it became clear your strategy was to remain obtuse to whatever I said.

    Either way - whether you read it from me, or Chris Martenson, or Richard Heinberg, or Chris Skrebowski, or Colin Campbell or any of these men far more esteemed and knowledgeable than you are - it's been all properly fleshed out for you numerous times now. Stop claiming it hasn't been, because you're not fooling anyone.

    The IEA, the USGS, the IMG, the Pentagon, the British/German/Australian governments, the EIA, Oxford Univ., the U.N., Total Oil (France), ASPO, BP's statistical data.... Again, how are all those entities lying? Where did they meet to get their story straight, and how is it that this great big "conspiracy" never leaked?

    Watch the video above. It's not political. It's simple arithmetic and the basic laws of thermodynamics at play here. Finance doesn't trump that, as much as you soft-science disciples wish it did.

    Admit you're wrong, and there'll be no hard feelings, .... and then we can finally switch gears and start talking about what can be done about it.

  2. #92
    Location: Southeast USA
    Posts: 62,129
    My Latest Mood: Amused

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Margot View Post
    More hysterical bull(*)(*)(*)(*) from Matt Simmons:
    "Mexico's ability to export oil will be over by the end of 2009."
    (Spoken prediction made at 35:50 of the interview available here)
    The reality:
    Mexico exported 1.59 million barrels of crude per day in May 2010.
    Source

    http://www.financialsensearchive.com...2008/1213.html
    For you, Jiggy...................

  3. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Margot View Post
    For you, Jiggy...................
    LOL.... your argument is sorta like saying a brain-dead car accident victim with a beating heart is technically still alive, and the doctors don't know what they're talking about.

    The fact is, Mexico is dying... rapidly. Further supporting my claim, not yours. Has been for years, and their exports were down some 45% between 2004 and 2009. And your figures (once again not supported by a link, big surprise as you seem to be allergic) don't match the data I have. Mexico had a net export rate of 974K per day in 2009.

    http://www.aspousa.org/index.php/201...inues-to-dive/

    Just stop.

  4. Default

    Jiggs Casey,

    Are you going to tell us your solution?

    Or do you need everyone to accept your faith first?

  5. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Margot View Post
    More hysterical bull(*)(*)(*)(*) from Matt Simmons:
    "Mexico's ability to export oil will be over by the end of 2009."
    (Spoken prediction made at 35:50 of the interview available here)
    The reality:
    Mexico exported 1.59 million barrels of crude per day in May 2010.
    Source

    http://www.financialsensearchive.com...2008/1213.html
    My favorite is when Simmons demanded that they nuke the GOM to solve the Macondo Prospect blowout. Never let an accountant pretend to be a petroleum engineer I always say. And methane. A toxin which will kill you on the spot? Didn't this guy ever even eat beans for dinner?

  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jiggs Casey View Post

    [COLOR="DarkRed"][B]Complex industrial societies EXIST because of cheap energy. Not the other way around.
    Stop right there.

    Rather than just a unsubstantiated statement of zero value, if this really is your point, PROVE it. For starters, this statement isn't a peak oil one, since oil is only a small part of the the energy humans use. Secondly, a corollary to your statement is that if energy isn't "cheap" (that being a relative term, who knows how you defining it) is that complex societies DON'T exist if energy ISN'T cheap.

    You and I are here. Typing our words out across the WWW. My lights are on. I'm betting, so are yours. I have automobiles in the driveway. Each has fuel in them. Planes fly out of my city every day. Factories are running all the time. People go to work, buy goods, cause traffic jams with all the fuel we humans still make.

    Would you care to point out why all this activity hasn't stopped, when real crude oil prices started increasing after the oil embargo's of the early 70's? 40+ years of increasing real crude price trend and here we all are....


    Quote Originally Posted by Jiggs Casey
    Of course, if you actually watched the short film provided to you, you'd understand that fact, spelled out in fairly rudimentary terms.
    No. I wouldn't. While I am sure that uTube videos pass for knowledge among the younger set nowadays, statements of opinion masquerading as fact is a tool of weak minds, or younglings who don't know a footnote from a hole in their head. Sorry.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jiggs Casey
    What's amusing is that you joined this forum for the express purpose of playing the denial role on THIS issue and THIS issue alone, and you've managed to be exposed as having an extremely limited understanding of the energy/economy symbiosis. That's gotta be embarrassing.
    What is amusing is your demonstration of ESP powers in determining my intent, and inability to answer even rudimentary questions on YOUR topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jiggs Casey
    What makes it important THIS TIME is that we're not discovering any new significant fields of crude any more. Not for 30-40 years now. If you watched the short video you'd understand that, as provided by the EIA and USGS. But you couldn't be bothered. You're an excellent dancer.
    No...what I am is someone who reads nearly everything the EIA and USGS publish. And they didn't say what your UTube videos claim they do. Which is why the value of actually watching them as they hack, butcher, misrepresent and censor the real information available is meaningless.

    And you are also incorrect, about this time being different. Hubbert himself declared peak oil would happen in America prior to 1950. Why? Because of the same argument you just used, he claimed that all significant discoveries had already happened, and there was nothing left to find. Any reason a gang of oil-ignorant amateurs can't make the same mistake that he did? Are you even aware of the history of peak oil?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jiggs Casey
    Admit you're wrong, and there'll be no hard feelings, .... and then we can finally switch gears and start talking about what can be done about it.
    You have already refused to talk about solutions, because we all refuse to understand this particular fear sale of yours. Now let me use my ESP powers, you have NEVER talked about solutions, here, or anywhere else, because you are a salesman, pitching an idea to sow fear for some undeclared reason, with a repertoire of breathless statements full of speculation and excitement. And when pressed, it turns out you are just reciting some script dreamed up by others, with no ability to defend even the most basic core peices (if you even really know them). The real question is, why?

  7. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jiggs Casey View Post
    LOL.... your argument is sorta like saying a brain-dead car accident victim with a beating heart is technically still alive, and the doctors don't know what they're talking about.

    The fact is, Mexico is dying... rapidly. Further supporting my claim, not yours. Has been for years, and their exports were down some 45% between 2004 and 2009. And your figures (once again not supported by a link, big surprise as you seem to be allergic) don't match the data I have. Mexico had a net export rate of 974K per day in 2009.

    http://www.aspousa.org/index.php/201...inues-to-dive/

    Just stop.
    What part of testing ones claims against reality, as a form of determining credibility, do you not understand?

  8. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jiggs Casey View Post
    You are a beaten poster. I can tell you'd like to extract yourself from this debate now, but you can't really find a way and still save face. You have so much bluster invested at this point that you just can't stop digging despite being stuck in a hole. You sense something is terribly wrong with your argument, but you're still not sure what it is, and you're not sure how to proceed.

    Poor "prophet." You just don't get it, do you? Your brain won't allow you to see, and your stubbornness helps you avoid the material presented plain as day.

    What a sadness.

    It won't do any good, but despite explaining it to you some 3 or 4 times now, and providing others who've explained it 3 or 4 times now, I'll hold your hand one more time through the process.

    Complex industrial societies EXIST because of cheap energy. Not the other way around. The requirement to print up all that money is directly BECAUSE mankind's net energy production has been falling for many decades now. The promise of "ever more tomorrow" has ended. The easy fields are plucked, pretty much everywhere. All that remain are ones that are far harder to harvest. Over leveraged investment banks no longer have that illusion of collateral. Further, with that enormous new energy bill, the loss in global discretionary spending (to the tune of trillions of dollars as oil price rises) cripples markets and municipal budgets. Whether you prefer to look at real or adjusted oil prices, it's the same unsustainable paradigm. What matters for growth is return on investment: Or how much energy and capital you must expend to get energy to market that does the work for complex societies. The lower that ratio, the more growth slows to a halt. It used to be 100:1 in the good ole days, and we've squandered it for decades. Now, it's closer to 8:1. That "abundant" unconventional crap you crow about? Returns about 3:1. Complex societies require considerably more than that, or they begin to wear down.

    Of course, if you actually watched the short film provided to you, you'd understand that fact, spelled out in fairly rudimentary terms. But nope, you acted like you couldn't be bothered to watch (or read) anything, so you could maintain your nay-saying, "nothing-to-see-here" platform.

    I'm sure you'll try and fake your way out of it again by way of "What's your point? - you don't explain it good enough for me - I'm too cool to read your link." It's the only thing keeping you afloat at this point.



    Perhaps. But almost nothing that pertains to this topic, clearly.

    What's amusing is that you joined this forum for the express purpose of playing the denial role on THIS issue and THIS issue alone, and you've managed to be exposed as having an extremely limited understanding of the energy/economy symbiosis. That's gotta be embarrassing.



    This is a serious assessment? When was the last time the global economy tipped this close to collapse all at once? These kinds of world events have always been important to me. Some of us have been heralding that the bill on this predicament was due for over 12 years, others far longer.



    There was no last time. You're comparing a geological and mathematical certainty (today) to a man-made dispute that led to a very short-term price shock (1970s). It's apples to oranges. No, worse. It's bread to oranges.

    What makes it important THIS TIME is that we're not discovering any new significant fields of crude any more. Not for 30-40 years now. If you watched the short video you'd understand that, as provided by the EIA and USGS. But you couldn't be bothered. You're an excellent dancer.



    That's what you need to tell yourself, beaten and out of bullets as you are. The reality is that I've spelled it out quite clearly multiple times now, and only resorted to a video teaching aid when it became clear your strategy was to remain obtuse to whatever I said.

    Either way - whether you read it from me, or Chris Martenson, or Richard Heinberg, or Chris Skrebowski, or Colin Campbell or any of these men far more esteemed and knowledgeable than you are - it's been all properly fleshed out for you numerous times now. Stop claiming it hasn't been, because you're not fooling anyone.

    The IEA, the USGS, the IMG, the Pentagon, the British/German/Australian governments, the EIA, Oxford Univ., the U.N., Total Oil (France), ASPO, BP's statistical data.... Again, how are all those entities lying? Where did they meet to get their story straight, and how is it that this great big "conspiracy" never leaked?

    Watch the video above. It's not political. It's simple arithmetic and the basic laws of thermodynamics at play here. Finance doesn't trump that, as much as you soft-science disciples wish it did.

    Admit you're wrong, and there'll be no hard feelings, .... and then we can finally switch gears and start talking about what can be done about it.
    Ah genius what about the new gull island discover

    Or the additional reserve under the know an obscenely underestimated
    Bakken field

    Keep spewing your phoney bologna govt propagand

    We know were all the oil reserves are an we are at peak production

    They claimed this same bs 30 and 40 yrs, ago

    Their is no more known oil fields were @ peak production of oil

    And will never make it past 2000 with current oil reserves an production

    Put that in your smoke an pipe it
    Sic Semper Tyrannis

  9. Default

    lol-fail.

    so much crap... full disclosure? it takes a bit time to properly respond to so many rapid-fire fail paragraphs. It being St. Patties day and all, I'm busy... be back tom. night, or more likely Mon.

    but I look forward to addressing you in turn, especially prophet's awesome rationalization that because we each currently have the internet and jobs, all the data is unfounded. Good job.

    Your strategy of perpetually repeating "prove it" over and over again -- despite the fact that the proof has been provided many times already (especially posts 1-4 of this thread) -- doesn't rescue you.

    Way to avoid every challenge and question put to you though.

    See you Monday, you whimsical cornucopian you.
    Last edited by Jiggs Casey; Mar 17 2012 at 11:23 PM.

  10. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sweetdaddy620 View Post
    Or the additional reserve under the know an obscenely underestimated
    Bakken field
    Says who? The definitive organization for resource estimates have published their numbers, and they didn't mention the word "obscene" anywhere in their published work. Would you like to clarify?

+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 10 of 54 FirstFirst ... 6789101112131420 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Here It Comes - Peak Money
    By frodo in forum Political Opinions & Beliefs
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: Jan 02 2012, 06:39 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks