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

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Jiggs Casey, Mar 11, 2012.

  1. Roy L

    Roy L Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    11,345
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What a shame that you had to make up something stupid and absurd, so that you could falsely and dishonestly attribute it to me. It was, of course, inevitable that you would do so. It will also not be the last time that you do so.

    I have been at some pains to make clear to you that unequal distribution of results does not disturb me in the least. You know this. What disturbs me is that naturally unequal results are artificially made even more unequal -- and MUCH more unjust -- purely for the unearned profit of rich, greedy, evil takers.
    And to the evil, that constitutes a good excuse to make it even more unfair.
    As you know, that is not what I have done. Thank you for fulfilling my prophecy, above, though.
    I have explained specifically how rich, greedy takers -- not "folks" -- get their ill-gotten gains. It is self-evident that if a few have gotten rich on ill-gotten gains (which they have), other "folks" -- i.e., the productive -- have not gotten even their rightful gains, let alone any ill-gotten ones. So you have again simply made up something stupid and absurd, and then falsely and dishonesty attributed it to me.
    PB is justly angry about injustice. He hasn't figured things out yet, probably because there is still so much stupid Marxist claptrap in the air confusing him (which pimps for capitalism eagerly disseminate, too, in order to prevent people knowing there is any other alternative). If he reads all my posts, he'll probably learn enough to see the light -- i.e., the cat.
    I recommend all those, plus thinking.
    You again fulfill my prophecy by makin' up some stupid $#!+ and falsely and dishonestly attributing it to me. And it is again not the last time you will do so.
     
  2. Slyhunter

    Slyhunter New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2010
    Messages:
    9,345
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We aren't even close to the peak yet. We need to drill in the Gulf, in Alaska, in the Western states they are finding a (*)(*)(*)(*) load of Natural Gas, and in the Rockies. Take the handcuffs off of our energy producers and let them do their thing and we will become the energy capital of the world. I just hope they pay us to be citizens like they do in Saudi.
     
  3. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Yes, those horrible pension funds, individual investors, all those participating in the terribly unfair system by casting their hard earned money into stocks and bonds, said system having an unequal distribution the shape of which you blame on those evil investors and pension funds and individuals doing investing and whatnot.

    So you don't like the SHAPE of the unequal distribution. Fine. And someone/something evil has made it so. And your solution to get this evilly gained wealth back to those who did not participate in the making of it, but apparently are now going to profit more from those who did? How much do you want to take away from the evil and give back?

    No you haven't. You have basically just claimed that those with money are evil and the money is ill gotten gain. I referenced only one person, Bill Gates, and you claimed he made his wealth not by making a better product, but by keeping other BETTER products from flourishing.

    Perhaps you are not aware of how a competitive advantage is wielded, or you consider the wielding of such an advantage unfair? You will have to explain this in more detail then just claiming it of course.

    Name a "productive" class which does not have their "rightful" gains. Just one, we can branch out from there.

    Then PB should say that, instead of making stupid generalizations PB isn't even willing to stick around and defend.
     
  4. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    That would depend on how you define peak. Peak of what? Oil? What kind of oil? Happy McDoom Peaksters tend to slice and dice oil into many categories so they can avoid the obvious...the obvious being any one thing might be peaking at any one point in time, but the thing people want, liquid fuels, we keep making more of that as we need.

    We are drilling in the Gulf, in Alaska, and the western states and the Rockies. So be happy!
     
  5. PrometheusBound

    PrometheusBound New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2012
    Messages:
    3,868
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Your constant excuse of "At least we're better than the Communists" shows you have nothing to justify your position. But most of all, something we're not allowed to know, is that Communism was created by the worthless sons of the worthless rich. Evil begets evil. Until we outlaw this class, we will have no honest solutions.
     
  6. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    11,101
    Likes Received:
    6,786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It should be obvious that we need a less expensive fuel for transportation and farming. Five dollar gasoline and diesel will drive food prices through the roof not to mention the agricultural dependence on chemicals simply to save fuel costs. With chemical resistant weeds and pests farming may have to take a step backwards and begin to cultivate crops like the old days and this will take more fuel.

    Higher fuel cost means higher production costa and higher feed costs plus higher transportation costs. This will make worldwide hunger an even bigger problem than it is today.

    It should also be obvious that money spent on fuel today could be money spent on consumer goods tommorow.
     
  7. Roy L

    Roy L Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    11,345
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Again, inevitably, and exactly as I prophesied, you have just made up something stupid, and then falsely and dishonestly attributed it to me.

    It is not those who buy or own slaves who are responsible for the evils of slavery. They are typically just ordinary people. It is the institution itself -- and those who deliberately choose to lie to rationalize, justify and excuse it -- that are to blame for the evil. Likewise, most of the pensioners, individual investors, etc. who buy and own privileges (and the companies that profit from privileges) are not especially evil. It is privilege and those who lie to rationalize, justify and excuse it that are truly evil.
    Again, you are just makin' $#!+ up and attributing it to me. I have stated explicitly that the excessive inequality and grotesque injustice of the system is due to government unjustly privileging those people, not to any particular effort on their part.
    I don't like that the distribution is artificially unequal, but as I have stated repeatedly, that is not my principal objection. My objection is to the the unjust mechanisms by which those at the high end of the distribution get there, and producers and consumers are shoved down.

    Let me make this clear to you so that you will know precisely and specifically what you are lying about next time:

    1. There is a natural, just distribution of wealth and income wherein each member of society obtains rewards commensurate with their contributions, and no one's rights are abrogated without just compensation.

    2. We don't know what that distribution is, but the most likely candidate is an inverse exponential distribution with exponent e (the natural log base). This distribution arises naturally in many random grinding and accretion processes statistically similar to economic activity.

    3. The current distribution is less equal than that, indicating that government has been and is intervening to steal from producers and consumers and give the loot to those who are already wealthy. I have identified privilege as the principal means by which government does this.

    4. However, the real problem is not the form of the distribution, but rather how it is effected. It would be a trivial exercise to reproduce the natural distribution by assigning amounts of wealth and income to people at random. That would obviously not address the issue of justice, and would likely be even more unjust than the current system. Likewise, privilege could be adjusted to reproduce a distribution identical in form to the natural distribution, but with no reliable relation between contribution and reward.

    5. So it is a lie to claim that my objection to the current distribution is primarily its form or inequality. My principal objection is to the unjust mechanism that assigns rewards incommensurately with contributions.
    That is definitely true. A system that causes two Holocausts a year could not happen by accident.
    No, my solution is to get rid of the unjust institutions that took the ill-gotten wealth from its producers and rightful owners and gave to rich, greedy takers.
    All that rightly belongs to those it was taken from.
    I most certainly have.
    And I have identified how they got it.
    And that is objectively correct.
    Gates's advantage was not superior competitiveness, but government-issued and -enforced patent and copyright privileges.
    What would be the point in explaining it again, when you have already refused to know all relevant facts?
    Non-union working people.
    People have other things to do (I know I do). It's premature to claim they aren't defending their views after just a day or two.
     
  8. PrometheusBound

    PrometheusBound New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2012
    Messages:
    3,868
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0



    Big Oil propaganda. You accept their price-gouging and advocate alternatives that have been proven premature. We've heard about all these futuristic fuels for fifty years. Just to continue this fantasy and keep profits obscene, double agents of Big Oil (Treehuggers are Heirhead scum) will disingenously blame Big Oil for blocking progress. The economic truth is that the oilhead stockholders could just as easily pull their money out and invest in Greenhead fantasies, but they all know that is pseudoscience and a waste of money. So does Obama. Look at the price of gasoline now and you will know what side this lawn jockey is really on.
     
  9. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Okay. Define privilege.

    Please describe said distribution, 10 to 100 percentile values should do it, and I can flesh it in from there. And source for said distribution, just so I can run off and check the basis if I have an urge.

    Guess that answers my last question. So now you HAVE claimed there is a distribution, and just as fast admit it doesn't exist, and are going to make one up. So now, can I assign the term "stupid" to you or not for something this ridiculous? Log base my ass, it is a beta. No wait, it is defined by a Pert! No...can't be, it must be a gamma! A weibull! No! A Laplace!

    Just STOP already. You don't know what it is, and I can make up just as many distributions as you can which don't apply.

    Likewise, you can't define what the right distribution is, therefore you have nothing to adjust. While making up cool systems to decide who you want to hand the reward to is amusing, there is one given. Those making up the right distribution will be sure it identifies them as the ones who deserve the most reward. because regardless of the shape of the distribution you don't know and can't even guess out with a straight face, to do that is human.

    It is a lie to claim that you know what the current distribution is. You already admitted that yourself. I recommend you apply the law of holes already..when in one, STOP DIGGIN ALREADY!

    You want to use statistical mumbo jumbo to create some half baked concept of Communism, just have the balls to SAY SO, and take the lumps associated with the position rather than running around talking about a distribution that doesn't exist and you can't provide me any basis for beyond making it up out of thin air.

    Well, when someone builds the distribution showing how all rewards should be allocated on the planet, and the measure, let us know, kay pumpkin?

    And who might that be? Let me guess! People you know! And of course, yourself for having noticed, and rigged phantom distributions to make sure whatever the measure is, you've got lots of it and therefore deserve the reward, your talent having been unfairly suppressed all these years by the privilege and wealth of what some of us would call hard work, education and training, decades of applying it and the resulting rewards which now...someone else deserves!

    You go Roy! Try and get petroleum engineers at the top of that make believe distribution, can you do that for us? Heck, we're the guys making sure other guys can put gasoline in their tanks and (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) the entire way to work about how unfair it is that gas costs what it does, so we deserve extra reward for making all that whining even possible!

    Now I see, it is the evil of patent laws and copyright! It is obvious that no one should ever be allowed to profit from their hard earned ideas, how dare these people have an idea! The horror! An idea! And wanting to make a buck off of it...goodness no, say it ain't so!

    I asked for a relevant fact. Please give me enough of the percentiles of the natural distribution of wealth or reward to calculate it for myself, and the basis for it. Any footnote in a science journal providing the basis for said distribution would be fine.
     
  10. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Define "wealth". A student goes to school, gets his degree, becomes a doctor, goes to work, makes lots of money, and now you want to take what he has earned away from him because he is wealthy. You want to be wealthy like him, how about you grow some brain cells and go get your own MD?

    I was trying to let the doctor keep it, what workers do you think should profit off of his brains, studies and work? He has the talent necessary to become a doctor, the local janitor might, or might not, but the one thing that is certain is that he DIDN'T invest the time and effort to become an MD. So explain why he deserves a cut?

    My daddy split when I was 5. I grew up in a trailer my friends referred to as "the hole"...use your imagination. No running water in the winter. Appalachia, surrounded by woods. Never ate store bought meat from the time I EARNED my first 22 rifle saving money from baling hay at age 9 until I went to college. Save your Robin Hood routine for those deprived of opportunity because, it just wasn't fair they smoked weed until all their brain cells died, it was anxiety's fault, it made me smoke the devil weed!

    You want more? Go earn it and try and resist the natural urge of the underachievers to take it from your betters because you don't have the willpower, brains, balls or capability to go get your own.

    A man....yes...whining about how unfair it is that everyone else has some, and it needs to be yours because you aren't capable of getting it for yourself. And racist to boot. let me guess, you shave your head and sit around on a compound in Idaho lamenting how if you had just not smoked all that weed you to could have learned to flip burgers and maybe made something of yourself.
     
  11. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    What price gouging? I buy electricity for my car, I leave funding the Jihadists and making Canadians wealthy to those ignorant enough to think that EVs are "proven premature" rather than something I hop in and drive in every day.

    Electricity? Sure..and we've been using it for even longer than that, glad you finally got around to hearing about it. I use it to power my car, how about you, still stuck on funding Jihadists?

    How about I pay no attention because I am quite happy using electricity to fuel my car. 3500# of greenhead fantasies, takes the kids to school, me around town, hard to call it a fantasy, what with the size of the thing, but maybe there aren't many on the compound in Idaho, let me guess, monster trucks with shotgun racks in the rear window, a nice dog in the passenger seat instead of a decent woman because they all fled for less rural areas where those who have made something of themselves left for awhile ago?
     
  12. PMZ

    PMZ New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2013
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A wise man once told me to ignore all problems until you have a complete, no cost and risk free solution in hand.

    I think he died though. Cancer, they suspect. Needed an operation. Only a 90 percent success rate though.
     
  13. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    11,101
    Likes Received:
    6,786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't think the government wants alternative fuels. They make too much money in oil. Hydrogen would probly break most State and local governments.

    Natural gas as fuel is not a pipe dream. We have the gas and the technology.
     
  14. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Economics cannot be ignored in the oil discussion. IMO 97% of people will not consider change unless it makes economical sense.

    If oil production represents about 9% of US GDP, or maybe about $1.3 trillion, which also might represent about 13 million US jobs, then economically any discussions about changing oil output becomes critical. Just a 10% reduction relates to a loss of 1.3 million jobs. Any increase in the cost of oil forces inflation of literally everything in society.

    Of course whatever alternative eventually displaces oil products will also create an economy...depending on what this might be will determine if it's a net gain or loss of economy.

    It is extremely beneficial to any economy to have inexpensive fuel/energy...
     
  15. PMZ

    PMZ New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2013
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We will always have the least expensive energy that's available. One current problem is that we are only paying part of the cost of fossil fuels as we use them. The other part in taxes. Like the security of our supply and the cost of waste disposal.
     
  16. Roy L

    Roy L Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    11,345
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Legal entitlement to benefit from the uncompensated violation of others' rights.
    Speaking of makin' $#!+ up...
    It's simply a less unequal form of the empirically observed distribution.
    You don't know what you are talking about. e is the base of natural logarithms.
    <yawn> Are you quite through?
    Yes, I do.
    The difference is that the distribution I describe DOES apply. It is empirically observed.
    I just did define it: rewards commensurate with contributions.
    Already proved wrong, stupid, and dishonest.
    No, it is only what YOU would do because you are totally focused on enabling your own greed.

    As usual, you can't dispute let alone refute anything I've written, so you make some stupid $#!+ up and attribute it to me.

    Why lie about what I have plainly written?
    Stop lying.
    <yawn>
    Why even bother with such stupid lies?
    Which you made up and are attributing to me in order to have something to screech about.
    It does exist. In fact, it is well known.
    I've already told you the basis.
    When you figure out what you erroneously thought that meant, let us know, kay pumpkin?
    Almost everyone.
    <yawn>

    Again, you have nothing to contribute, so you make some stupid, dishonest $#!+ up and attribute it to me. It's always the same with apologists for greed, privilege and injustice. Observe:
    See?
    Lots of people claim to be indispensable for lots of reasons. But in due course they all die and are replaced.


    It's a major evil. Not the only or even biggest one.
    See? You're just makin' stupid, dishonest $#!+ up and attributing it to me again.
    Try http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/StatisticalMechanicsOfMoney/
     
  17. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Well, you are wrong then. If there is one thing America requires, it is that you must compensate people from whom you take things (thinking eminent domain), and you can't violate their rights. Thank goodness we have that copyright law you were complaining about earlier!

    If you didn't get the point I was making, you really perhaps are dumber than I originally suspected. You don't know what the distribution is. End of story. If you wish to make one up, so can I, and without that distribution, you can no more define the fair distribution of reward than anyone else can.

    Then show me 100 percentiles of this distribution, and where you got it from. Kids stuff, if in fact it is well known.

    And yet it is required to make sure the right people can be compensated for their ideas. So which is it, a horrible evil, or exactly the protection needed so the little guy can lord it over the evil people who, in your world, are making more then they should, but you can't explain what they should earn because you have no distribution showing what the relationship between compensation and contribution should be?

    Make up your mind which it is, and if you can't, change your dosage so you can think straight enough to decide which side of this fence you wish to sit on.
     
  18. Roy L

    Roy L Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    11,345
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, I am objectively correct and you are objectively wrong.
    No, that's a grotesque, absurd, and outrageous fabrication. America is built on uncompensated, forcible removal of people's rights, from the forcible dispossession and deliberate extermination of aboriginals, to the enslavement of Africans, to the invasions of foreign countries and/or covert removals of their democratically elected governments, to the removal of people's liberty to use money free of debt, to the return of slavery through the evil and insane War on Drugs and its associated private prison industry. The litany of uncompensated, forcible removals of people's rights that begins with appropriation of land as private property just goes on and on.
    LOL! A million innocent people locked in steel cages for starters, and you claim their rights can't be violated?

    If your absurd fabrications were not the death knell of a civilization, you would be a joke.
    Copyright law forcibly removes people's rights to liberty without just (or in fact any) compensation.
    <yawn> I am incomparably your intellectual as well as moral superior.
    What do you mean, "the" distribution? What distribution, precisely, do you falsely, stupidly, and dishonestly claim I don't know?
    No, that's just more false, stupid and dishonest garbage from you. I have already defined it: rewards commensurate with contributions.
    I already gave you a url explaining the distribution I consider most likely to be natural.
    No, it is not. That is simply a false, stupid, unsupported, and indefensible fabrication on your part with no basis in fact, logic, economics or morality.
    I don't see any little people lording it over the evil. I see one little person in a thousand joining the evil.
    It's self-evident that rich, greedy takers are getting more than they should.
    I have already explained it very specifically.
    As you know, I have stated that it should be 1:1, and that while I suspect that the resulting distribution would be similar to natural ones arising from similar processes, the form of the distribution is less important than the rightfulness of the processes that produce it.
    More stupid, contentless garbage.
     
  19. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Okay Roy, you win. I'll just wait until you can provide the distribution of just reward you claim exists, but can't provide (as compared to the one which exists, but you say is unfair) and then we can discuss the only piece of reality you claim to have, but won't provide me the percentiles of.
     
  20. ralfy

    ralfy Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2013
    Messages:
    659
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Global oil production per capita peaked in 1979.

    Crude oil production peaked in 2005.

    Capital expenditures for the oil industry are rising. That means more money has to be spent in exchange for little or no increase in production.

    U.S. shale oil is expected to make up for that and meet growing demand. Shale oil will last for only a few years because of low energy returns.

    Demand growth is expected to be equivalent to one Saudi Arabia every seven years, or one every three years given a growing global middle class.
     
  21. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This data is not in agreement with your comments above;

    http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?product=oil&graph=production
     
  22. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Agreed, people have become far more efficient in their use of transport fuels.

    Wrong. Google is your friend. For historical reference, it was because they screwed the pooch so badly on this one that the eggheaded and oil ignorant at TOD imploded. May their careers rest in peace.

    jbspHUdjx7Za13.jpg

    A) if oil had already peaked, the answer would be "no increase"...but we know it isn't..and apparently now you are willing to admit it as well....
    B) and so you are saying it has gotten more expensive over time to produce oil....DUH. It wasn't any different when great grandad paid $0.20/foot to drill versus $10/foot now.

    Let me guess, you've never drilled a well before in your life and learned everything you know on this topic from blogs and what Gail has written? Jesus Lord save us from these disciples of bloggers....

    Shale gas wells have been around since 1825, shale oil since 1880's (at least). They met growing demand back then, and are still doing so today.

    And shale oil and gas aren't developed for their ENERGY return, but the $$$$ that energy is sold for.CASH. DOLLARS. MULAH. PESOS. You want to sell Charlie Hall type drivel, stick to the ignorant peak oilers, go pray in their chuch, because they are about the only ones dumb enough to fall for it. Get together with Jiggsy, and you two can cut and paste nonsense that wasn't true in 2000 and isn't true today, and because neither of you know anything, you would make the perfect pair, nodding vigorously at each others nonsense.

    And this has been claimed by Jimmy Carter did it in 1977 and amazingly...how many new Saudi Arabia's have joined OPEC? Why don't you go pitch Santa Claus to 3 year-olds, you might get a bite, but this isn't oil-ignorant forum land. Try TinFoilPalace. TheOilAge. Powerswitch. There is this astrologist, he has insider knowledge of the peak oil movement and understands their religious bent as well as having claimed they are mostly suffering from daddy issues....you might be more comfortable with them...called LATOC or something silly...but astrology, should fit right up the oil-ignorants alley.
     
  23. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    That is because Ralfy is a zealot. Been around quite awhile I imagine, pimping fear for some reason or another. He once hung out with previously mentioned astrologer, was probably one of the zealots that Savinar claimed had daddy issues and was a religious nutjob. Apparently they infested Savinar's peak oil website, and he was forced to shut it down to stop their religious rantings. Ralfy originates from there I believe, seen that name before.
     
  24. ralfy

    ralfy Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2013
    Messages:
    659
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    28
    That's not helpful because in capitalist systems efficiency leads to more consumption.

    That includes tight oil. I'm referring to crude oil.

    We're now using tight oil because crude oil peaked in 2005.

    It's not just over time but a tripling in only six years. And don't forget capex.

    The data comes from the EIA and IEA.

    No, they didn't. We're only using it now because energy returns for crude oil have dropped to rates similar to that of shale oil.

    That's not the point. Rather, energy returns affects profitability. Why do you think capex levels are so high?

    No, he didn't. The claim was made by IEA only recently, and refers to significant increase in oil consumption for the rest of the world that started only two decades ago. You'll find more details in the Outlook 2010 report.

    And don't forget to look at the EIA Outlook report for 2013, which shows not only shale oil being used to meet demand but that it will also peak in only a few years.
     
  25. ralfy

    ralfy Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2013
    Messages:
    659
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    28
    That's crude plus tight oil. Take a look at the chart in p. 10 of this presentation for details:

    http://www.eia.gov/pressroom/presentations/sieminski_04202013.pdf

    Crude oil peaked in 2005-2006, and that was confirmed by the IEA:

    "International Energy Agency says 'peak oil' has hit. Crisis averted?"

    http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Glob...-Agency-says-peak-oil-has-hit.-Crisis-averted

    Finally, it's more logical to look at oil production per capita, as production meets both growing demand and population. Here's a chart that uses data from the EIA and other sources:

    http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/2013/07/peak-oil-what-peak-oil.html

    Oil production per capita peaked in 1979.
     

Share This Page