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

You aren't presenting DATA. You are presenting conclusions from others, some of whom are just as ignorant about oil and gas as YOU are, and just because they SAY something doesn't make it true. Any more than TOD claiming peak oil in 2008 made it true. Or LATOC, otherwise known as the place you LEARNED this stuff, claiming that the draft was coming. Tell us, did you LEARN that from Savinar? Or were you just one of those who caused him to comment on the religious fundamentalism that you forum folks suffered from?

I know far more about that article than you do. Or even the author for that matter. Are you prepared to discuss it...or ANYTHING...or is all you can do is parrot news articles like Jiggsy. Are you Jiggsy's sock puppet?

I know far more about this article than you do as well. Are you prepared to discuss it...or ANYTHING....or is you ability limited only to cutting and pasting links?

Might I recommend you go forth and TALK to people then, so that your knowledge isn't limited to only what you THINK someone has said?

[/quote]

Again, I know far more about this topic than you do...or the author of the reference. How about this...shale oil projections in the US will not change because of the change in TRR estimate in the Monterey. Now...do you know WHY? Come on Jiggsy/Ralfy, show us you KNOW something here, an aren't just a bot cutting and pasting articles you don't even understand.

 

Do you know any more about what uncertainty even means, compared to your nonexistent knowledge of the oil and gas industry? Tell you what, I will provide a single example, and we'll see if your LATOC learning did you any good at all.

Take the following information...projections from PCI, TOD, Simmons, Ruppert, your favorite advocacy organization for natural gas production in the US from 2005 onward. Compare that to reality.

Now ask just one question...why NOT use the high resource case? Each of those organization/people were predicting the natural gas cliff in America, shortages, rationing, importing, you name it. They screwed the pooch through sheer geologic-knowledge based incompetence, and instead we received another peak in US gas production 40 years after the last one, record production, crashing prices because of supply surplus, you name it.

Now, can you explain why the high resource case isn't EXACTLY what should be used in the new technological/price environment?

Apply the % of the miss between those PCI/Simmons/TOD/LATOC estimates and what really happened, and then explain what precludes the SAME things from causing the same amplitude of difference between the EIA reference case and high resource case?

THAT is why you use the high resource case...because of how foolish you look when consistently underestimating the effects of technology and price.

You aren't making arguments, because apparently you don't even KNOW anything, you are a cut and paste artist from a discredited religious organization, who learned everything you know from LATOC...and once again...here is the fear those folks were pimping...you LEARNING this and all from them. Whatever did happen to that draft, have you since LEARNED why what you learned from LATOC was crap?

View attachment 27991

 

It doesn't matter where Gail's information comes from IF SHE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND HOW TO USE IT.

I can write down 2+2=5 all day long, and just because you are dumb enough to FALL for it doesn't make it right. Gail's past busts on things as basic as calling peak oil, her inexperience with either finance or the oil and gas industry, her lack of insight on items as basic as what IS oil, all preclude her from making any more of a conherent conclusion than YOU. Except you aren't even trying, just throwing out bad conclusions from others and expecting folks to read into it what you CLAIM....and you have been claiming 2+2=5 for so long you don't even see it yourself. Blinded by religious fervor or zealotry, who knows, but it is nice to know you admit coming from LATOC and therefore we have some information on your brand of psychobabble religiousness. From Savinar himself. Maybe you can get him out of retirement to take back all those things he said about you? That would be a start.

Your inability to think, and only post the conclusions of others, some of whom know NOTHING about the industry in question, itself begs how valuable ANYTHING you reference might be.

Obviously you don't know even the basics of Hubbert's 1938 peak oil estimate....why? Because it isn't taught in your religious school. You don't understand the the uncertainties surrounding future production rates because you change your baseline of production and play kick the can...and then don't understand, or care, or aren't allowed to discuss, how many OTHER times this has happened, and you CERTAINLY can't explain the uncertainty related to how many MORE times it can happen.

So who cares about bad reports, particularly ones you likely haven't read? I'm not even sure you understand things as simple as those two "changes in shale estimates" papers you referenced...certainly you don't know the back story....but I do...and why? Because I am quite familiar with the people involved, have spoken to them, work professionally with more than a few, and watch their presentations at national conferences...the kind where TOD folks have become a punchline for not understanding the same core issues you don't.

Prove YOU know something. Anything. Tell us about one of those two "changes in shale" articles, your vast knowledge on how these estimates are made. How did peak oilers do their projections incorporating economics, engineering and geology into their estimates, as the EIA does? Do you know the names of their engineers, geologsts and economists who participated in the studies? If not, why not? Did LATOC not make phone calls to determine the facts of the matter, to minimize looking as foolish as TOD did later?

If all you want to be is a cut and paste bandit, a parrot without your own functioning synapses, I can recommend the following websites where such ignorance passes for knowledge, and the forum overlords will protect your brand of stupidity from those of us who do this for a living. Choose one of these, they would love to have another know nothing parrot on board.

http://forums.silentcountry.com/forums/forum.php

http://hubberts-arms.org/

http://peakoil.com/

 

There is absolutely no reason that the U.S. Military R&D Groups working with the DOE....will not be able to have a plan to supply the U.S. with all the clean energy it will ever need from 2050 on into the future.

AboveAlpha

 

The military also has plans for alien invasions. Plans don't mean much. We need to be building nuclear power plants, not planning on building nuclear power plants. We are generations behind in that.

 

Whatever is used locally makes up for what doesn't have to be imported, which in turn is used by other countries.

Easy: just increase credit. What do you think the country has been doing for several years?

"Fed Part IV: Where Is All That Money?"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2013/02/28/fed-part-iv-where-is-all-that-money/

 

I've been presenting data from EIA and IEA. Conclusions come from the IEA and other organizations.

Go ahead and counter the conclusion given by the EIA.

But the IEA stated very clearly that crude oil production peaked in 2006. Both the IEA and EIA forecasted that U.S. shale oil will peak in 2020. See for yourself.

[/quote]

Again, I know far more about this topic than you do...or the author of the reference. How about this...shale oil projections in the US will not change because of the change in TRR estimate in the Monterey. Now...do you know WHY? Come on Jiggsy/Ralfy, show us you KNOW something here, an aren't just a bot cutting and pasting articles you don't even understand.[/QUOTE]

Go ahead and explain why.

 

The data I shared with you comes from EIA until October 2013, not the sources you gave. The conclusions I shared come from the draft of the latest EIA report and IEA Outlook 2010. The links are given in my previous posts.

By the way, this contradicts your argument, as you were one who argued that projections are uncertain.

But you yourself argued that data is driven by uncertainty. Given that, it is illogical to use a high resource case.

Because, as you pointed out, the projections are uncertain. In which case, it's logical to use something other than a high resource case. The recent news concerning Monterey supports that.

You take both extremes, and the reference case becomes the norm!

When you are dealing with uncertainty, then you can underestimate OR overestimate. Don't forget that uncertainty works both ways.

Again, the arguments that I've been sharing with you does not from LATOC but from EIA data until October 2013, IEA Outlook 2010 and the latest investor outlook report, and a page referring to a draft of the latest EIA report. The links are given in my previous posts.

 

What information are you talking about, and why was it not used properly?

I have no idea what you are now talking about.

But the data I used comes from the EIA, which you used earlier to support your argument. Don't you remember? It was the forecast of increasing production to 2040, but the same forecast also shows shale oil peaking in 2020.

As for the IEA, you confirmed that, but insisted that the peak oil forecast was made in 2006. Actually, it was made in 2010.

So, how is it possible that the sources that you argue know nothing about this issue are also the same sources you use to, ironically, acknowledge what I just said?

Why are you referring to a '38 estimate? The theory that he finally used to forecast U.S. crude oil production peak and global crude oil production peaked was developed during the 1950s. And he got the forecast right for both.

No one is stopping you from explaining the "back story," supported by verifiable evidence.

But the conclusions I shared with you come from the EIA, not from peak oilers. Didn't you read the page from the EIA site I shared earlier? They said that U.S. shale oil will peak in 2020, the same as what the IEA said. The IEA also concluded that U.S. shale oil technology cannot be replicated easily elsewhere.

As for names, you can see for yourself by reading the reports. I gave the links in previous messages.

Wouldn't the IEA and EIA links I shared with you in earlier messages be more helpful?

 

They have been working on such for the last few years, and only because they believe that peak oil problems will happen soon. Here's an article with links to several U.S. military reports:

"Military reports leading the charge in peak oil debate"

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2010-10-01/military-reports-leading-charge-peak-oil-debate

There have even been earlier arguments from the Pentagon and others regarding this issue combined with others (such as global warming). Multiple reports are shared here:

"Pentagon bracing for public dissent over climate and energy shocks"

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...jun/14/climate-change-energy-shocks-nsa-prism

 

Like I said...none of it is being used to satisfy GLOBAL demand because it is all consumed locally. You want to make economic arguments, fine, then do it right. Let us not forget, it is the oil-ignorant that have been claiming that once a peak has happened, terminal decline is the result.

Does this look like TERMINAL decline to anyone with a functioning brain? Worse yet, the EIA reference case you want to refer to, in order to dodge the consequences of what the high resource case represents, shows that new increase just about matching that old peak. Just like natural gas repeaked the United States 40 years after Hubbert's early 70's claim, oil under EXPECTED conditions is set to do the same.

Proving...again...that the disciples of a religion built on oil production rates don't know dick about oil, geology, or economics.

 

Completely logical if the expectation is that the common underestimates still exist. And you certainly don't have a single link answering that point, now do you?

You don't even understand what change happened to the Monterey, so you certainly don't stand on your ignorance in this regard.

Like I said, you don't understand anything about uncertainty. That is NOT what the EIA did. Would you like a call out to Matt Savinar to help you out?

I am completely familiar with the uncertainty in the estimates you reference. Which is why I know your previous statement was a crock.

I am referring to the leader of your last forum hangout as representative of what you claimed to have LEARNED there. We don't need religious doom groupies with daddy issues here...or what they learned from an unemployed lawyer on the topic of how the oil and gas industry works.

I provided a list of places where the oil-ignorant would love you, go there where they don't know anything, have consistently underestimated oil an gas production for longer than you have been alive, and get the result you desire from preaching to the choir.

 

While you not even understanding the claims made by YOUR references isn't a surprise, it is a surprise that you think anyone would answer a parrot, explaining their sources to them.

Or what YOU have been talking about, apparently.

Is your history of peak oil claims as bad you want us to believe, or is it just inconvenient to remember what Fatih Birol has claimed when you weren't looking...reality having disproven so many past peak oil-ignorant claims?

http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2011/05/05/the-world-has-passed-peak-oil-says-top-economist/

Liar. In 1938 Hubbert predicted peak oil in the US by 1950. Nearly 20 years later...after peak obviously hadn't happened..he took another crack at it. Two cracks in the same paper as a matter of fact. One of those two estimates was pretty good. So...3 guesses...1 pretty close. He predicted natural gas peak in the US about the same time. He was wrong, natural gas peak was achieved 4 decades later. He also predicted peak oil in the world at that point in time. After about 12+ billion barrels a year. Right about the year 2000. And we hit 30+ instead. So we have 5 forecasts, and 1 came close.

You see what I mean, thinking for yourself? When you do a little, you discover that Hubbert was right 1 time in 5 guesses. Is that what in your world passes for being "right"? Or is that more of a term used when you really meant "hey if its within an order of magnitude that's okay with me because I don't know dick about counting and numbers anyway"?

Verifiable evidence is easy...but because you don't attend the places these issues are discussed, hanging out at religious forums instead, and your friends at those forums only hang out at religious forums, of what use is providing the date and time things were said, the conversations, the actors involved? Just because you choose a religious web forum to LEARN from doesn't mean the rest of us are that stupid. We already know what you LEARNED at LATOC, and we are allowed to laugh about it.

Good for the IEA. Maybe ever since they were discredited on Fatih's peak oil claim for 2006 they have become more careful in their analysis. Speaking of the IEA, I assume you stand by all of their conclusions then? Or only the ones you like?

 

When tens of millions of Americans live pay-check to pay-check, increasing the costs of fossil fuels forces them to change their buying habits, cutting back on some things in order to afford fuel prices, and rising fuel prices definitely increase the cost of everything...inflation...none of which IMO many Americans and the US economy can tolerate.

I never indicated that inflation will increase at the same rate as fuel costs increase? I'm a farmer and a significant cost item for us is fuel, so you start increasing fuel prices and it forces me to cut back in other areas, and if I can't, then I must raise my prices, which increases the cost to all Americans. In my town to fill my car tank today cost 19.7 gallons X $4.19/gallon = $82.54. Long gone are the days when someone puts $5-$10 of gasoline in their car! Maybe this does not effect you, but to me $82.54 is a huge amount and when gas prices increase and a fill up costs more than $100...IMHO the US economy will take a huge hit...

- - - Updated - - -

I would prefer we cut back on fossil fuels...

 

I suspect some of your numbers when you factor in intermittency loss and the fossil fuel component of alternatives. In any case wind and solar falls in this graph under the heading of "other renewable". Check how much they are a factor on a global scale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#mediaviewer/File:World_energy_consumption.svg

 

yet they already have.....what has happened to nominal fuel prices since 2000...a quadrupling? And yet here we all are, buying new pickup trucks, millions of new autos each year, housing values have increased during the same time...looks like many Americans and the US economy have ALREADY handled.

All of which is EXACTLY as it should be. Econ101. And it has been happening for as long as you and I have been alive. Sometimes bad, sometimes not as bad, but inflation has always been there. It sucks. And is as much a part of life as the sun rising in the east.

Yep. Drive a pickup truck, and that choice in transport will cost you. In your case, maybe cost your business. In my case, I don't spend $10/month on gasoline for my car. Some months, I spend zero $$. I don't need a pickup truck, so I can be far more flexible in my choice in transport. Let others spend $50 to fill up their cars, I would rather spend it on other stuff. To each their own. Amazing that all it takes is a change in behavior, a compromise here, a decision there, and pretty soon what was once a drain on the budget becomes discretionary income.

Oh, it affected me so much I've already made my lifestyle choices and compromises. You go ahead and put your hard earned dollars into buying liquid fuels for your pickup, if that is what you want. I'd rather not. And the economy has already taken the hit, it has been what, 6 years now since the price of oil was at its highest? And we are now what, 25% lower than that? It WAS worse...and we're all still here talking about it.

Same here. 13.8% windmill power last year, and about 20% from solar panels. Even higher percentages for my transport fuels because the office and local department store now have chargers to fuel my car for free!

 

Well, I got my 13.8% from the amount of electricity generated and consumed in my state for 2013. The 20% from PV is based on what the output from the panels are my roof do compared to the household usage, including fueling the car. An estimate, but a reasonable one.

Global ain't America, but give them time and who knows?

 

You think they are so different? Check the chart on solar and wind.

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec1_5.pdf

Perhaps more to the point

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec1_7.pdf

 

It was a table, not a chart. Was there a particular column you wished to discuss?

That wasn't a chart either. Is there a particular piece of these tables you wish to discuss?

 

Good call dude. Now that you have won your pyrrhic victory you want to address the obvious point? Hint, US and world aren't that different.

 

Sure. I think. Using your first reference, the first thing I note is that this information is just for the US. So was the second. So I can't use that information to demonstrate how the world and US are so different. From the information you provided for the US, it sure looks like their "renewables" category is quite substantial, and has grown from 9% beyond non-renewable to 27%, from 1950 to end of 2013.

So I guess from this information I can deduce that renewables in the US have grown BUNCHES (a technical term used by those gaining pyrrhic victories because folks can't be bothered to use language to reflect what they mean, forcing others to try and guess from their poorly expressed thoughts what they REALLY meant...often referred to as "mind reading").

Are you trying to make the point that the world is doing far better than either our 9% more in 1950, or our 27% more in 2013? Nothing wrong with that of course, it is quite an encouraging number for those wishing to see more and more renewables used, rather than fossil fuel stuff.

 

Again, whatever the U.S. does not need to be import because of local supply is used by other countries.

But the point I raised refers to global crude oil production, not U.S. total production.

But the peak oil issue refers to global production.

 

The conclusions made by the EIA and IEA come from their own data!

Also, please point out where I referred to Duncan, etc.

Why are you sticking to earlier assessments made by the IEA which did not involve a survey of oil fields made in 2008?

But the data and conclusions I am using come from the EIA and IEA, which you have also been referring to in your arguments! In fact, you are now stating that you support what the IEA said in 2006 but not what it said in 2010. Why do you want to do that when the 2010 conclusions involve more comprehensive data?

 

Uncertainty means both underestimates and overestimates exist.

Go ahead and explain what happened.

On the contrary, I know exactly what is involved in uncertainty. Your claim that that it involves only underestimates is wrong.

I don't think so. What I see is that you support the estimates that validate your views. But when the IEA makes new conclusions given data gathered from 2008, and when new estimates about Monterey are released by the EIA, you ignore them.

I learned by reading various reports shared in the link I shared earlier. All of the data I've been presenting to you comes from the EIA, IEA, and others.

Actually, forum members differed on the forecasts.

More important, the information that I've been sharing in this thread come from the same agencies that you've also been using. I am still waiting for your counterarguments regarding that.