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

Random recitals of propaganda hardly qualifies as proof of anything...well....to anyone who examines the information with any amount of honesty anyway.

I still believe if you could actually think for yourself instead of turning any response into a cut and paste exercise would add more validity to your point. As it is, you just look pretty clueless, unable to respond unless someone has already tackled the propaganda talking point you are asked.

 

LOL!!! ... You mean like I when I support my claims with links, and you complain that I engage in a "cut and paste exercise?"

Which is it, whiner? Do you want my claims substantiated or don't you? It seems like you're not happy when I provide expert testimony, or my own prose. This way, you can complain your way out of any corner you've backed yourself into I guess, by simply repeating "I'm not convinced" over and over again.

Holy crap, are you ever awful at this.

Hard of you to claim, considering you've shown over and over again that you don't even understand the term peak oil. Evidenced, AGAIN, by the fact that you think oil is "only a small part" of what we use. Perhaps "small" is a relative term to free market cornucopians like you, who have no idea what they're ever talking about when it comes to the Earth's natural limits.

Your propensity to truncate my posts and only respond to the isolated sentence you can try to spin is a blatant form of intellectual dishonesty. So not only am I arguing with an idiot, I'm arguing with a liar.

"Cheap," in this context, refers to efficiency and return on investment. Aspects that have been presented to you numerous times now, and you've refused to acknowledge them. And I stand firmly behind my statement. If it weren't for the efficiency of light, sweet crude oil, we would not be anywhere near the empire we are today (and probably wouldn't even have won WWII).

Expert rationale. As if the ramifications of peak happen overnight. LOL.

What a deep thinker you are. You were asked to imagine the world today without the $15 trillion in bailouts of 3-4 years ago. So you punt to this. Your argument is like telling a doctor, "so the numerous blood tests indicate I have cancer? Well, I jogged this morning, so obviously you're wrong."

Gosh, wait. Weren't you the one saying that the real price after inflation hasn't changed much? LOL!!! You appear to be learning as you're going along, and adjusting your fatally flawed rationale as your argument erodes with each passing non-sensical talking point. Either way, I'm glad you accepted something as fact: Real crude prices ARE trending upwards, and have been for decades.

So you buffer yourself from absorbing material that you know would rape your "nothing to see here" platform by pretending you can't be bothered. Sound defense.

"Your honor, the court shouldn't have to hear this expert testimony. Arithmetic is not fact. It's opinion.!"

More logic fail from the forum's biggest denialist.

Project much? No one does that quite as routinely as you. Meanwhile, I've answered every one of your less-than-informed questions. At least the ones that aren't presented as yet another dumb false dichotomy.

Where did Chris Martenson claim any of that? Oh wait, you didn't watch. You're just pulling unfalsifiable claim out of your rectum again in a desperate attempt to keep the waters muddied.

No, he didn't. Source your claim, or ****.

In 1954, he claimed U.S. oil production would peak in the late 60s to early 70s. It peaked in 1971. It has been in decline every since, and new "production" from synthetic heavy oils doesn't change that fact.

Are you? You can't even get the initial claim correct. You appear to be operating off one of those tired "peakoildebunked" web sites that have been all but abandoned the past 7-8 years.

It is amusing watching you pretend the Pentagon and IEA (for example) are "oil-ignorant amateurs."

"refuse to understand" being the key turn of phrase. Indeed, "refusing to understand" is a willful choice by anyone with this much bluster invested. Pride takes over, regardless of how much mathematical data beats you over the head.

Not only have I talked about them many other places, RGR, but you've participated in them.

The solutions have to do with harsh conservation methods and real acknowledgement of an out-of-control population paradigm. Really, there are no "solutions" to peak oil Only steps to mitigate so that complex societies can still barter for time while technology catches up.

LOL... Your retarded reality in your plush American neighborhood? Or the reality of accepted geology and ever-widening geopolitical conflict?

This would hold weight if you actually attempted to proclaim what about the data presented is wrong. But you're not really examining the information at all, are you? All you're doing is sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "nah, nah, blah, blah, i'm not listening!!!" really loudly.

Again, this is what you desperately need to keep telling yourself. You read my claims, you demand verification. You're given verification, you refuse to watch or read them, dismiss them on the surface, and wish it came from me instead. My god, guy, which is it? Ah well, I guess you can keep your fingers in your ears then.

Again Your argument is like a defense lawyer telling the judge:

"Your honor, all this expert testimony and direct evidence is useless. Unless the prosecution provides it himself, I urge you to dismiss the case."

There, there, little free marketeer. We understand what makes your team short-circuit. You, like most humans, are hard-wired toward survival and good news. It's confidence that makes capitalism churn like the well-"oiled" machine it always has been. So any attempt by real science to undermine soft science (finance) is a direct threat to your sensibilities.

Unfortunately, you can't win this argument by claiming over and over again that you can't be bothered to look at the facts presented to you. Filibuster all you like. It doesn't change the data, and you just end up looking more and more stupid.

 

If I ask you to explain how the entities in Post #3 -- IEA, Pentagon, U.S. DoE, the IMF, Oxford Univ., Virgin Group, Total Oil (France), etc. -- are all wrong, and you respond with "they just are!"... Well, you haven't really countered the argument at all. Instead, all you've done is re-iterate that you don't want it to be true.

How are they wrong, profit? Where did they meet to get their story straight? Why are abundant unconventionals still expected to represent only a tiny sliver of the future energy pie? How did this great big conspiracy not leak?

 

Why do I need to counter them? The US military has been so afraid of running out of oil BEFORE YOU WERE BORN that they caused the President of the United States to buy land, set aside land, manage land, all to make sure they had the fuel necessary to run their hardware.

You want us to believe that what they are claiming now is new? Or at least as serious as their fear then? Fine....seen them buying up oil rights in the Permian Basin have you Jiggsy? Seen them collecting a couple million acres of lease rights in Alaska? Or Wyoming? Get a clue Jiggsy, back before you were born those boys were WORRIED about their crude supply. And they DID things about it.

Drop us a line from whatever alternate reality you live in when you think you can even understand why this matters, let alone they get as serious as they were convincing great great grandpa to conserve because the world was running out of oil.

 

Mainly because you've been running your mouth for 7 pages now, insisting that peak is not real. Or not yet. I mean, you're free to run from their conclusions if you like, but it leaves you looking like 1) not very confident in your ability to form a tangible argument, or 2) in agreement.

I'm not very certain on what you're trying to allude to here. Your horrible writing skill doesn't make very clear whether you're trying to be sarcastic, or sincere.

Are you trying to suggest the military doesn't know what it's doing? Or that they make dire public claims on global oil reserves for merely political reasons?

Again, what point are you trying to make here? That the military is desperate to secure areas for drilling? Who is "they" and "them?" Write better.

And whatever you do -- for a poster who can't tell the difference between high grade ore and low grade ore, and who doesn't think energy density is important to this overall topic -- you really shouldn't be telling ANYONE to "get a clue."

I'll drop a line when you can ever clarify what it is exactly that you're trying to ramble on about. Because right now, in your hissy fit after getting your argument taken behind the woodshed over and over again, you're writing like a high school kid just trying to get a D and pass the course.

I've seen in another thread where you insist oil is not abiotic, so you must agree it is a finite natural resource. At least you're not a complete mouth-breather. Still, it is amusing watching you use the argument of "well, those other guys were 'kinda wrong' before, so these new guys MUST be wrong now." ... Ooops, doesn't work that way.

Of course, if you actually watched that short, 10-minute video I provided for you earlier, you wouldn't be able to fake it by way of ignorance all this time. The man was very clear about the math. Though I doubt you're much better at math than you are at English or geology.

 

Ya well math an pyshics proves a bumble cant fly and somehow it does

And those fields could prolly prove an elephant can hang onto a branch twig
over a cliff with its tail and not fall

Tho we all knw in the. real world it can't

 

Did you just try to make a point using a fictional character from an ABC Christmas special?

Dude, you're irrelevant in the main forum, so you're most certainly out of your league in this specialty forum.

Adults are talking. Run along now.

 

Oh rite rite king jiggalo

 

Its u r world were just livin in It huh tin horn Jiggy the despot kasey kase klum

 

Your inability to think for yourself, relying instead on link baiting and cutting and pasting of various sources while ignoring the actual points being raised, is not my ignorance in action.

 

It's because since 2004 oil prices have been inelastic, a sure sign of limited supply.

Prior to 2004, when demand went up, prices went up, and the Saudis would turn on the taps and pump more oil in response to the higher price. Since then, when demand has gone up the Saudis (and OPEC generally) haven't been able to do a darned thing, because they're already producing as much as they can. In the inelastic price regime, small changes in demand cause huge swings in price, which is exactly what we've been seeing.

The inelastic pricing regime doesn't pinpoint an exact moment of peak production, but it does indicate that from an economic perspective, "peak oil" has arrived.

 

It matters because the energy-return-on-energy-invested (EROEI) is considerably lower for non-traditional sources like tar sands than it is for liquid oil. When that starts happening, renewables look better and better, while fossil fuels look worse and worse.

 

Uh, no. California oil production peaked in 1983, and the decline since then has been mostly in heavy oil.

A more apt analogy would be if you had three 10-oz. rocks of calaverite (gold ore), which are not gold, but from which gold can be extracted for a price. Compare that to a 1 pound nugget. Which would you rather have?

 

Here is a link for the original work done by Hubbert where he predicted peak oil in the US and (less accurately) everything else.

Any chance you can point out where he contends that price in-elasticity has anything to do with knowing when peak oil has arrived, rather than just watching the oil production rates stop increasing, and begin declining?

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

 

They might "look" worse and worse, but that certainly doesn't appear to interfere with financial results like...ummmm...this.

If these results are "worse", please sir, may I have some more?

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2011/performers/companies/profits/

 

The point being covered in my California heavy oil analogy was that heavy oils have been around a long time, have been put in people's gas tanks, and they didn't mind in the least that their gasoline was derived from something other than light, sweet crude, of a particular density, only produced from fields onshore, shallow, and whatever other ridiculous criteria some people confuse as "easy" versus "hard" oil.

For the record, California oil production peaked in around 1925. Again in about 1952. Again in about 1970. And most recently in 1983.

Which is why using peak as an indication of much of anything can be so amusing.

The nugget of course. But the nuggets were found and sold when gold was $50/oz. Now it is $1500 and if there are no nuggets around, I can assure you I will be quite happy with a large amount of calaverite. Just as the world is quite happy using biofuels for transport power, heavy oil, tar sands, GTL derived liquids and anything else which can be quite profitable in a $100/bbl environment.

 

LOL... Well, I'm sorry you see it that way, but at this point, with the beating you've been taking, I can see why you need to cling to that rationale. ... Either way, you may as well get used to it: When I make a claim, I'm gonna support that claim with a link to data and testimony you and I can both verify, and anyone else following along. You should think about doing it yourself. You make a ton of claims (many demonstratively false), and never support your work. Says a lot more about you, actually.

I should say: besides punting to irrelevant CNN Money stories showing record profits for a few major corporations. You're good at that. Shall I counter with 30 other corporations who needed tax-payer funded corporate welfare in order to stay alive and avoid a complete run on the banks a few years ago?

Or should we just talk about Greece and the EU? Japan? "More please," right?

Holy mackerel, are you completely out of touch.

It's official. You're faking your way through this topic, and learning as you're going along.

And your propensity to truncate my responses smaller and smaller as we go back and forth is clear indication you have absolutely no answers at all for all that I challenge you with. You either don't understand what net energy ratio entails for the global economy and economic growth, or you just don't think it matters that oil is $108 per barrel and rising.

Very well, profit. I'll just let you leave all that I've challenged you with unanswered. Run along then.

But just answer one last question:

When the blue collar worker and small business simply can't scrape it together and afford $5-6 gas anymore, what then? Will you still be denying that peak oil is here? Or just not a problem?

 

Actually, no. The hope is that by focusing your attention on less link baiting and cutting and pasting voluminous stuff unrelated to the questions being asked, that your thinking about what you write will improve.

This works with humans with an education level above that of the 3rd grade...even in public schools.

I suspect you are either a bot of some sort, or just a child with no ability to think for themselves.

What part of a business raising prices to pass along increased costs has your programmer not informed you of? And when will you realize that peak oil has either happened before, is happening now, or will happen in the future, and you don't appear capable of understanding the difference, original post claims to the contrary?

This is what peak oil was claimed to be a few years back. Check out the intersection of 2012 and IEA production claims and the rate of nearly 90 million barrels a day. That is where production is today. Notice how the claims of decrease representing peakers has done so poorly.

I will bet that you will not be able to restrict your answer to the question, but will just be more spew because answering the question will require a thought.

 

The rig count peaked at 4,530 in 1981 and bottomed at 488 in 1999.

http://www.politicalforum.com/current-events/239150-us-oil-gas-rig-count-1-984-up.html

 

The last spike in rig counts happened right around the same time global peak oil last happened. Looks like we have a ways to go yet before we can use the rig count to determine that another peak oil has indeed happened.

 

Rig counts tend to be tied to the ppb.. They increase when profit opportunities are high.

 

I'm just kind of curious.

Why are almost all of these articles linked in the OP from Spring of 2010? Is there any more recent data? Seems slightly odd is all.

 

Because all of the similar claims back in 2005 would look a little bit ridiculous, 7 years later, don't you think? This peak oil stuff has been going on for decades, and it is always kick the can, or it happens and no one notices, or we are right in the middle of one, etc etc.

You would think they would get tired of reality being thrown in their faces, but faith based systems aren't really deterred by facts and reality much.

 

I can't respond properly because I only have my phone and away from my computer for the weekend....

But holy crap are your last few posts epic fail. For now, lemme just ask: what do u think $5. Ave gas will do to America? $6?

See you Monday, deep thinker.

 

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

when we start running low... people wont be guessing about it, we will all know