World Without Oil

This is a completely serious post? Are you absorbing what is happening all over the world? Or is skyrocketing food and fuel prices lost on you behind some gated community? Because I can assure you, they are not lost on the poor and middle class from the U.S. to Egypt.

The world's conventional oil production has barely budged since 2005. It is the very cause of the world's debt-based financial bubble, which loans money based on the "promise" of "more tomorrow." That promise is over.

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

 

There is no oil company in the world that is reporting their reserves to Colin Campbell..

Don't you understand that Peak Oil was a political paper to convince the American public to accept more foreign crude because Texas couldn't compete.

 

Coming from a poster who suggests Iran is "completely untapped" and 600 million barrels of oil is a big deal, you've quickly become completely irrelevant to this discussion. You were asked to flesh out how/why all those international entities were lying about supply shortfall, and you balked.

Colin Campbell is perhaps 10-fold more informed than you, I'd stake my life savings on that bet, and would immediately double them.

 

Of course. And it is nothing like what was predicted for peak oil. Here is what was supposed to happen, contemporaneous to the timeframe.

http://www.bluegreenearth.us/archive/article/2005/culture-change/lundberg-special1-2005.html

Peak oil hasn't held up very well to the projections of what it was supposed to do.

So is conventional the same as light and sweet, or is it another subdivision to try and make a debating point somehow? And that Dr. Campbell was talking about a decline, if we've been at peak since 2005, how has that managed to happen? So we are finding just enough to offset those declines, and this has had the staggering consequence of....banks not following rules on maintaining the quality of their loans, or checking the creditworthiness of their customers?

 

But he is a really smart guy isn't he? Looking up his bio it is obvious he doesn't have any training or experience in anything related to how banks work, but he is entitled to his opinion no matter how amateurish it might be.

 

Could you reference for us his degrees or experience in banks, finance, money lending, economic policy or anything related to the points he made? Was he an intern at Morgan Stanley or something before he became an oilman, and just didn't mention it in his wiki bio?

 

Well.. Many many people had never heard of Peak Oil until Bush attacked Iraq..

Then, Matthew Simmons, an Energy Broker, who has never set foot in an oilfield .. regurgitated Peak Oil theory.. to drive a fear of scarcity and line his own pockets.

 

Yes peak oil, like AGW is a farce.....Only it ain't so funny when American citizens have to pay outrageous prices for fuel because Obama blocked the Keystone pipeline that would have increased oil supplies/fuel production, and isn't it interesting that one of Obama's richest supporters Warren Buffett was the chief beneficiary because he is a chief investor in Burlington North Railway which is well positioned to carry oil.

Also note that the 'powers that be' have decided that the railroad would 'lessen environmental issues' ARE YOU KIDDING ME! Come on folks...Are you all really that dumb? Obama is counting on it.

http://blog.gasbuddy.com/posts/Burl...inner-in-Keystone-debate/1715-480739-761.aspx

 

He did do that, didn't he? And then he went absolutely bonkers during the Macondo Prospect disaster and it became real obvious, real fast, that being an accountant sure didn't teach him anything about the oil business.

 

Utter gibberish!! We live in a world reliant on carbon based energy sources, that is not in question. However to assert that this need always be the case, or else the standard of living will be unsustainable is idiotic and absurd!! The modern world is geared towards carbon based energy sources because those were the energy sources they had in mind when built. The day is quickly coming again, when carbon fuel sources WILL become unaffordable, and it has nothing to do with "enviro-wackos," it only has to do with a basic understanding of the nature of non-renewable resources. Intelligent people want to begin the inevitable transition away from carbon based energy now, so it is not such a crisis in a few years when it becomes absolutely necessary!! Unfortunately, ignorant people on the right eat up energy industry propaganda to make them believe that without carbon based energy the entire world would fall apart. That would only be the case if carbon energy all disappeared over night. Fortunately that won't happen, and we have plenty of warning and time to solve the problem. Now if only brain dead right wingers would get out the way of scientific advancement and progress, maybe we can avoid that problem all together!!

 

When all else fails, punt to straw man arguments!! Whereby you can take an extreme example of prediction failure from one entity that didn't come true and attempt to assign it to the movement as a whole.

Shall I now obliterate your ploy with multiple examples of what HAS come true? Or are you ready to be a grown up and stick with intellectual honesty?

You don't even understand the importance of net energy. It's hard to debate with someone who is so stuck in the first two stages of grief - denial and anger. Oh RGR.

You seem to have real difficulty understanding the difference between peak and decline. We remain at the plateau of production, and that has been painful enough. Overall, we're not at decline yet because we keep padding laughable production growth by changing the definition of "all liquids" to include outrageously more expensive alternatives.

Your EIA chart a few pages back goes back to 2008, and does far more for my argument than it does yours. Regardless, if you think a mere 700K barrel per day increase in 3 years is keeping the world safe and sound and far from panic, you're far more clueless than I originally would have guessed.

 

I took a certified expert on the topic and referenced his opinion. It was quite the common opinion back right around the time peak oil happened. I didn't say you would like it, only that it shows the mindset back when peak oil happened.

What does any of this have to do with the reference in question?

I am unfamiliar with the meaning of your abbreviation, or its relation to net energy.

In the other thread you claim that peak oil has happened. Not plateau oil. And if we aren't declining yet, then we are apparently discovering a new Saudi Arabia every 3 years, as has often been claimed. You wouldn't happen to know the number of Saudi Arabia's who have joined OPEC during the past 6 years of peak oil, do you? We need 2 new Saudi Arabia's, and darn it, I jut can't seem to find them?

It shows that peak oil is happening. Again. Do you have a prediction when it will peak? Again? Or how many more times it will do this plateau/peak thing?

 

It shows one mindset, and you're attempting to pretend it represents the entire movement. Don't be coy by backpedaling now.

I would ask you the same question of your one lame example.

You are unfamiliar with the relevance of net energy, period.

The thread title you're referring to is pretty clear, despite your curious reading deficiencies. It actually says "We ARE AT THE PEAK in world oil production."

There is no past tense there. Read slower.

More intellectual dishonesty. Link to where you're referencing the "new Saudi Arabia's" meme, and I'll show the context of how it's used. I'm pretty sure they're talking about a time frame by 2020 or 2030, not this instant.

Grow up, and post honestly or accurately, or admit you're vastly outmatched on this topic. If you're unable to do that, please explain what will represent that white wedge going forward in Post #3. The IEA would love to hear from you, as they have no idea either.

Of course to you, a thimble-full more next year is evidence that there is no crisis, and annual demand increase doesn't factor at all. ... If you were at all honest, you would provide a wider EIA graph that goes back a bit further than 2008. The plain fact is that C+C production has barely moved since 2004-2005, a point you already concede.

You're taking a real beating on this issue. Until you can explain how the IEA, the Pengaton, the EIA, the U.S. Dept. of Energy, the German government, the Australian Government, Virgin Group, Oxford Univ., the IMF and countless others 1) have all reached the same "incorrect" conclusion, 2) are all lying, and 3) how the great conspiracy never leaked to the masses ... then you continue to sound like just another free marketeer who can't even think beyond finance and the amenities of your own gated community.

When it comes to energy density and its affects on the markets, you apparently don't know what you're talking about, and to you the global systemic financial meltdown is all simply the result of people suddenly "taking to many vacations" and running up their credit cards.

Epic blue screen fail.

 

In what way does anything you say explain anything? You throw out a statement, make fun of anyone who disagrees with it, start saying "fail" rather than answering the questions posed, and pretty much leave the impression that the sum total of your critical thinking on the topic is...zero.

How about a slow pitch? How many more peak oils will be declared over the next decade? As best I can tell we have a few claimed in the 90's, a decent 3 or 4 in the 2000-2010 range, and now you appear to be claiming one for 2012.

How many more times will peak oilers claim peak oil this decade? And for how many more decades will this type of mindless behavior continue until we really DO reach peak oil?

 

so you have no links, and you can't meet any of the direct challenges put to you in my previous post, or any of the others before it... (but you CAN truncate my post, spew a series of false dichotomy and unfalsifiable claims, and then - ironically - pretend I'M the one not answering an inquiry.)

Epistemic closure, personified. ... You are truly horrible at this.

 

At what? What exactly do you think you are doing here, looking for....converts? Is it really so common on the web nowadays to just show up on a website, make some ridiculous claims, and expect everyone to be gullible enough to fall for...whatever...hook, line and sinker?

You can't even explain the most basic points of your position without relying on uTube videos (certainly the paragon of peer reviewed and fact checked information in the known world) and when asked even simple questions, you start throwing out derogatory terms like a child having a temper tantrum.

The question is easy. State your point. And then provide just a single piece of evidence that you think best supports it, and we can start there. But this endless cutting and pasting of what others say on the topic makes you look like you haven't thought your position through in the least.

 

Solar generation plants may be a non-starter anyway, environmental groups are opposing building solar plants in the deserts because of 'environmental' issues.

 

They Saudis built a solar power plant on Farasan Island and its a wildlife preserve.

You know the horny toads and tortoises might like a bit of shade.

 

Tell that to the environmental whackos here in the US. The Saudis probably harvest those tortoises for food anyway.

 

Nope.. the Saudis don't eat turtle, but Dubia has a huge Hawksbill turtle project.







http://www.politicalforum.com/economics-trade/238311-professor-who-knew-too-little.html

 

Well that thing certainly ain't swimming under a solar panel in the desert. All kidding aside, don't you find it interesting that the same enviro-whackos that decry our use of oil will not let US build solar generating plants in the desert where the sun shines most of the time?

 

Yeah.. I think they are nuts..

I remember how wonderful the fishing was underneath and around the drilling platforms in the Persian Gulf..

And, while I am not expert.. I think it was the shade that increased the fish population so dramatically.

We used to catch skipjack, hammour, tuna, bonita as long as your arm.

 

Great white sharks eat sea turtle.

Doesn't change the fact that solar and wind are intermittent and are very expensive to maintain.

 

Very true, not to mention having to bribe the environmental lobby.

 

Pot, meet kettle. This is rich. You joined in my wake, and have participated in only these threads. So your agenda is as transparent. Worse, your claims have been the only ridiculous ones, especially the one that pretends that net energy doesn't matter.

When I see nonsense spewed by cornucopians, I tend to correct the record. I'm sorry this geological certainty ruffles your sensibilities so badly, but you're gonna need to do a bit better than telling us what it says at your local gas pump. Because that's about all you've offered. Just like RGR.

Nice try, but you're not fooling anyone here. I've explained it over and over again in plain English that is impossible for anyone to misunderstand unless they're being purposefully obtuse, sorta like you. Please stop lying and pretending, that between the two of us, I'm the one not answering basic questions. I'm pretty sure you've "answered" about 5% of my questions. It's gotten so bad for you on this issue that you've resorted to truncating my posts to only the last sentence, ignoring all the rest that takes your tired argument behind the woodshed.

LOL. My point is stated with crystal clarity in the title of the thread I created in this forum. I then followed through with not only a single piece of evidence, but a few dozen single pieces of evidence, none of which you've shown a shred of courage to address. Instead, in your muppet-like frustration, you've turned this into a personal pissing match in order to mask your utter inability to atone for the fact that all these men are much smarter than you, and are puking all over your "nothing to see here" platform.