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

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

  1. Jiggs Casey

    Jiggs Casey New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    210
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Shall we review the dozen or so challenges put to you that you've ignored? Different when you do it, though, huh, free marketeer?

    Like I said, I'll address the steps of mitigating peak once I'm done putting your "nothing to see here argument" to bed, RGR. I am flattered that you created an account and followed me here, however.
     
  2. Jiggs Casey

    Jiggs Casey New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    210
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Irony.

    Like I said earlier, you don't get to redefine the term and then argue against a straw man. I mean, you can, but it's utterly ineffectual. I'm starting to believe your complete lack of nuance is intentional so as to remain obtuse and belligerent. None of this changes the fact that the world needs more and more energy with each passing year, and no evidence exists it can go much higher at all.

    LOL... Look at you playing defense lawyer, trying so desperately to create reasonable doubt now that you have so much at stake. I'm sure Edison botched the light bulb once or twice, but in the end, he revolutionized productivity.

    Technology and market adjustments may have bought a little time, but the overall equation still requires you to refute basic arithmetic - something you're, as yet, unwilling or unable to accomplish. Praying to the God of finance like you undoubtedly do doesn't change the basic Laws of Thermodynamics. You remain incapable or unwilling to view the situation from a biophysical perspective. Many economists have same arrogant, ignorant mindset.

    For all your cynical blather about the plateau of peak, you've yet to acknowledge the fact that demand continues to rise, does it not? So whether the peak of world oil production is sharp like a knife, or rounded/flat at the top is somewhat irrelevant. The world demands more energy, and oil producing nations are unable to supply it sufficiently. I'll let you **** around with semantics, I'll be over here reminding you that discoveries are lagging WAY behind.

    This sounds like the fumblings of a man who has absolutely ZERO idea what kind of cost barriers wild catters face when trying to harvest fossil fuels. You really are limited in your grasp of the subject matter, aren't you?

    It's called reading. Something you should attempt at some point in life before pontificating so arrogantly on a topic you've revealed yourself to be sorely uninformed on.
     
  3. Jiggs Casey

    Jiggs Casey New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    210
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    here's another former top-ranking energy official and CIA director who must be "wrong" or "lying," though the denialists here can't qualify which:

    Schlesinger: We are all peakists now

    http://www.davidstrahan.com/blog/?p=42

    (Podcast) Former US Energy Secretary Dr James Schlesinger today claimed that the intellectual arguments over peak oil had been won, and that in effect ‘we are all peakists now’.

    In the keynote speech at the first day of an oil depletion conference hosted by the Association for the Study of Peak Oil in Cork, Schlesinger said that oil industry executives now privately concede that the world faces an imminent oil production peak, and argued that a recent report by the US oil industry grouping the National Petroleum Council constituted “a backdoor admission that in the next decade or two we face a moment of truth”. In a wide-ranging interview with Lastoilshock.com, Dr Schlesinger – who was also Defence Secretary and CIA Director – explains why he thinks “the battle is over, the peakists have won”, and discusses the delusions of US energy policy, Iraq, Iran and $100 oil. ​


    In other words, we are at peak, will ride that wave for a little while, but only decline is what follows.

    Again I ask, and perhaps one of our cornucopians will finally man-up and answer:

    1) How did all these entities come to the same conclusion, especially if unconventional fields are so "plentiful?"
    2) Where did they all meet to get their story straight and dupe the world?
    3) How did no one leak the great international conspiracy?


    :thumbsdown:
     
  4. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Same here. I guess we are fortunate that even if it is peaking, we have plenty left to use over the next half century or more.
     
  5. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I would agree. And we have done it before certainly, the US economy produces far more $GDP per barrel of oil than it did back in the 1970's, when the process started. I am always surprised when peak oilers don't use the word efficiency, it is one of those concepts they do their best to avoid, seems like.

    in California they are now using solar to make steam with which to produce (you guessed it Jiggsy!) heavy oil.

    I wonder if this is what Jiggsy means when he talks about net energy, the growing examples of using a free and plentiful source of energy to produce a much more valuable one?
     
  6. Margot

    Margot Account closed, not banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Messages:
    62,072
    Likes Received:
    345
    Trophy Points:
    0
    [​IMG]

    Predicted Mexico would be out of oil by 2009.
     
  7. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    You appear to be confused. Randomly peppering people with possibly unrelated or irrelevant information, and then "challenging" them to disprove either a negative, or work their way around a loaded question, is certainly neither your initial point nor a challenge.

    I can't even recall any challenges you've made, lots of claims certainly, but not much in the way of proving your point.

    Was this one of your challenges?

    "OK, let's try another angle, and then perhaps maybe you'll start to get it. Please link to any source you think you can find that declares tar sands production will ever go above 3 million bpd."

    ???
     
  8. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    May we focus on some simple part of this that you may better make your point? Perhaps you could tell us your point? Peak oil happened....now? This year? Or back when the experts have said it happened? You are able to defend your point, aren't you?
     
  9. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    In his words, maybe. Do you have any of your own?

    Let me help you. Do you think Schlesinger meant it when he said,

    "Oil production should peak out around the world in the early 1990s. The world, which is now consuming about 60 million bbl. a day, faces a limit on production somewhere around 75 million or 80 million bbl. a day. That means in five years’ time we may have chewed up most of the possibility of further expansion of oil production.”

    April 25, 1977, James Schlesinger.

    Imagine that, the guy still sees peak oils, 35 years later.

    Is there a limit on the number of times people are allowed to claim peak oil, running out, or any of the other variants of the idea used over the years?
     
  10. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    The guy also thought that the oil industry needed nukes to stop a blowout. Fortunately, no one took this particular accountant very seriously. Except...well...some peak oilers.
     
  11. Jiggs Casey

    Jiggs Casey New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    210
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually, liar, I allude to efficiency in almost every post. It's YOU who avoids the factor of energy density like the plague. You should really think about taking a couple of posts off. Every time you run your mouth on this issue, you hang yourself with ever-more poetic irony.

    As usual, you reference a small example of test phase technology (without actually providing a link for context), and pretend it atones for the predicament as a whole.

    Holy crap are you horrible at this.

    I know you're even worse than RGR here at providing a link to support your claims, but try and do so on this one. I'm pretty sure Simmons said Mexico would be past peak by 2009. Not "out of oil."

    How many lies are you guys gonna let yourselves be caught in before you start posting with some semblance of intellectual honesty. I mean, generally, when stuck in a hole, the first tactic should be to stop digging.
     
  12. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    What predicament? You mean, we're beyond peak oil by more than half a decade now and it has been so horrifying that someone besides you noticed?

    Come on Jiggsy, what is your POINT? Peak oil means..to you...what? You can't afford to fuel up a monster truck? Certainly you can't claim there isn't enough fuel around for me and you to buy as much as we might want, so your point about peak oil being now is....what? That this time, it will be different? Do you promise?

    So follow your own advice already. Or at the very least, post a coherent thought which we can debate about.
     
  13. Jiggs Casey

    Jiggs Casey New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    210
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So smarmy. ... Ah well.... As I've asked you about six times now: Are you aware of what is currently happening in the world? Or do you simply dispute it all has anything to do with oil prices and supply scarcity amid relentless demand?

    My "point" is plain as day to anyone able to acknowledge the $15 trillion in corporate socialism that was "necessary" to stave off a new super depression -- one that would have made the 1930s look like a walk in the park. It wasn't solved, only delayed. Where do you think the world would be today if central banks didn't rev up the printing presses in 2008 and beyond? Seriously, where?

    I mean, are you in full denial about the state of Europe? Skyrocketing food costs? The dwindling global C+C export figures? Do you think it's a good thing the we have to strip mine mountain ranges, drill to dangerous new depths under the sea, and conduct decades-long police actions in volatile nations just to keep feeding the beast? We never used to have to do that. Do you understand why?

    Or are you just so comfortable and satiated behind your gated community that you have absolutely no clue how the rest of the world currently lives?

    If it's the latter, that is really sad. But your ignorance to the affects of global oil decline won't last forever. As soon as aggregate decline begins, there won't be a wall you can build high enough that will keep you from admitting, "wow, I guess the world really IS in big trouble ... too bad I took a 'nothing to see here' approach to rising oil prices."

    You seem to be the only one having trouble understanding. My guess is you're such a dyed-in-the-wool free marketeer, that the synapses in your brain don't even allow you to understand what terms like perpetual global growth and net energy actually means.

    That's a shame. But there is help. If you're willing to educate yourself via men much smarter than you. Now, I know your default response will be "So? He's not a banker!?!?!?," but when you're done thinking about everything all wrong, and ready to learn something..... be sure to absorb chapters 17a, 17b and 17c, if you can't be bothered to watch the whole course:

    http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse/chapter-17a-peak-oil
    (note, especially, the chart at 5:40 of chapter 17a)
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwNgNyiXPLk"]Crash Course: Chapter 17a - Peak Oil by Chris Martenson - YouTube[/ame]
     
  14. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

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

    I understand all sorts of things. And note that all the things you mention are happening all the time, why are they important to you only NOW?

    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?

    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.
     
  15. Margot

    Margot Account closed, not banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Messages:
    62,072
    Likes Received:
    345
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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/Experts/roundtable/2008/1213.html
     
  16. Jiggs Casey

    Jiggs Casey New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    210
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  17. Margot

    Margot Account closed, not banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Messages:
    62,072
    Likes Received:
    345
    Trophy Points:
    0
    For you, Jiggy...................
     
  18. Jiggs Casey

    Jiggs Casey New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    210
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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/2010/01/mexican-oil-production-continues-to-dive/

    Just stop.
     
  19. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Jiggs Casey,

    Are you going to tell us your solution?

    Or do you need everyone to accept your faith first?
     
  20. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    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?
     
  21. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38


    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....


    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.

    What is amusing is your demonstration of ESP powers in determining my intent, and inability to answer even rudimentary questions on YOUR topic.

    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?

    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?
     
  22. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    What part of testing ones claims against reality, as a form of determining credibility, do you not understand?
     
  23. sweetdaddy620

    sweetdaddy620 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2012
    Messages:
    410
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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
     
  24. Jiggs Casey

    Jiggs Casey New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    210
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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. :alientwo: 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. :w00t:

    See you Monday, you whimsical cornucopian you.
     
  25. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    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?
     

Share This Page