$5 a gallon oil in 2012

[JiggsCasey]

2010 Crude Oil: 50 Billion Barrels Discovered, 30 Billion Barrels Used | Oil Price.com

Now run off and consult your Bible....there is bound to be another parable in there which you haven't tried out yet.....

LOL. By the way, convenient of you to allude to estimated, ultra-deep water finds under salt formations. Doing so with your obligatory arrogance, which makes you look extra stupid.

I can SAY we've found technically recoverable reserves approaching 10 trillion barrels under the surface of the moon if I like. Doesn't mean we can ever afford to get to it, even if it was proven to exist.

 

[westwall]

Oil is not measured by, defined by, given the go ahead to drill for or value calculated on by using EROEI. Ever. In the history of the oil business.

But then, straw man champion, we're talking about the comparison of energy efficiency between oranges (my charge) and apples (your extrapolation). Thus, EROEI is quite relevant when comparing very different sources of energy. Tool.

Regardless, as a CEO, if you feel you can get rich spending a barrel of inputs in order to get a mere three to market, by all means, please do bankrupt your business trying to do so.

Obviously the oil industry DOES consider the rate of return before drilling, otherwise it would have exploited said shale/sands reserves YEARS ago, rather than depend on far cheaper LIGHT CRUDE for decades. What do you still fail to understand about this very easy-to-understand discussion?

Please do not introduce your religious concepts into a perfectly nice conversation about oil.

LOL. Religious concepts? Irony. What's your own excuse, Drebbin?

Regardless, this conversation hasn't been "nice" since you entered it, and immediately started acting like an "arrogant prick," to use your own words. At what point in this exchange do you stop lying?



What in God's name are you talking about? Link to where I said exactly that.



There you go, changing the goalposts again. I said dying production of nations/regions. Of course, in your perpetual fraud, you wanna switch the discussion to individual, specific tiny fields, including one you can spin.

Do you want to talk about individual fields? Very well... How about super giants like Ghawar, Burgan and Cantarell? All in decline. Romashkino? Samotlor? Same.

I can verify those giants if you like (via the IEA/EIA), or you can squawk about piddly pools in west Texas some more, if you prefer, and pretend it does much of anything for your greater argument.



LOL. You did absolutely no such thing. All you did was conflate heavy, far-more-expensive oils with light crude. Oops.

At this point in this exchange, it's clear I have a far wider range of reading material on the subject than you're faking.

At this point in the exchange we know you can't google up EIA information without someone telling you what to google. We know you aren't capable of debating Hirsch's incorrect geologic basis for his oil or natural gas prediction. We know you don't know anything about the use of EROEI within the oil industry in the past century and a half. And we know that you can't even get a 2:5 ratio of oil exchange worked out to be in your favor.

Did I miss anything?

You're an excellent dancer, denialist. But none of those things have been demonstrated at all. You're not fooling anyone here.

Again, please link the 2:5 reference you're alluding to.

You increasingly look like a coward who ducks specific challenges, and instead proclaims "you can't answer me!!!" over and over again.

You suck at this, and your only ploy is to pretend vastly more expensive oil and gas shale can be injected into the fundamental equation. It can't.

Because what we're covering here is net energy, and you are well aware that heavy oils do not yield abundant net energy.

That would be this quote from this thread, man, your short term memory is as bad as your math and English language skills.

"Recognizing their vastly greater costs is somehow "discrimination" against unconventional sources? LOL. Could you BE more pretentious when you misrepresent my point?

You can point to a mountain range that contains 50 trillion barrels of oil shale if you like. But if it costs 2 barrels to get every 5 barrels to market, it's going to do zero for the global economy. Get it yet?"



http://www.usmessageboard.com/energ...s-dispel-peak-oil-as-myth-21.html#post3159494

 

[JiggsCasey]

That would be this quote from this thread, man, your short term memory is as bad as your math and English language skills.

"Recognizing their vastly greater costs is somehow "discrimination" against unconventional sources? LOL. Could you BE more pretentious when you misrepresent my point?

You can point to a mountain range that contains 50 trillion barrels of oil shale if you like. But if it costs 2 barrels to get every 5 barrels to market, it's going to do zero for the global economy. Get it yet?"

http://www.usmessageboard.com/energ...s-dispel-peak-oil-as-myth-21.html#post3159494

Right, but that does not jibe with what RGR is trying to reshape at all.

You and your pal there distorted the statement away from a comment about global economy and energy's relation to growth, and into some irrelevant point about how "rich" you'd get if you were said oil company CEO. What??????? Miss the point much?

Do you believe western governments would continue to subsidize something that yields that kind of return on investment? 2.5:1?

Once again, we are where we are because of a 100:1 ratio, down to today's very strained, yet still passable 15:1 ratio.

2.5:1 (from heavy oils) will NOT maintain an economic paradigm utterly dependent upon 7% annual growth. What don't you understand about that assertion?

 

[westwall]

That would be this quote from this thread, man, your short term memory is as bad as your math and English language skills.

"Recognizing their vastly greater costs is somehow "discrimination" against unconventional sources? LOL. Could you BE more pretentious when you misrepresent my point?

You can point to a mountain range that contains 50 trillion barrels of oil shale if you like. But if it costs 2 barrels to get every 5 barrels to market, it's going to do zero for the global economy. Get it yet?"

http://www.usmessageboard.com/energ...s-dispel-peak-oil-as-myth-21.html#post3159494

Right, but that does not jibe with what RGR is trying to reshape at all.

You and your pal there distorted the statement away from a comment about global economy and energy's relation to growth, and into some irrelevant point about how "rich" you'd get if you were said oil company CEO. What??????? Miss the point much?

Do you believe western governments would continue to subsidize something that yields that kind of return on investment? 2.5:1?

Once again, we are where we are because of a 100:1 ratio, down to today's very strained, yet still passable 15:1 ratio.

2.5:1 (from heavy oils) will NOT maintain an economic paradigm utterly dependent upon 7% annual growth. What don't you understand about that assertion?

Now you are suddenly unable to read what you wrote? You said "if it costs 2 barrels to get 5 barrels to market it's going to do zero for the global economy. Get it yet?"

And we said, yes we'll take that ROI any day of the week. That would be FAR better than what the oil companies currently earn.

So, to sum up, you don't understand the oil business. You have no understanding of geology. You are not conversant with the English language. You can't add. You don't understand simple economics. You need to go back to school dude!

 

[RGR]

Oil is not measured by, defined by, given the go ahead to drill for or value calculated on by using EROEI. Ever. In the history of the oil business.

Obviously the oil industry DOES consider the rate of return before drilling, otherwise it would have exploited said shale/sands reserves YEARS ago, rather than depend on far cheaper LIGHT CRUDE for decades. What do you still fail to understand about this very easy-to-understand discussion?

A) IRR is not EROEI. I recommend google for learning the difference.
B) Shale (gas) began production in 1825. Which even in a peakers world qualifies as "years ago".
C) Light sweet crude is also produced from these shales, dating back into the 19th century.

Learn some history already. Put down your Bible, and pick up a BOOK already.

Regardless, this conversation hasn't been "nice" since you entered it, and immediately started acting like an "arrogant prick," to use your own words. At what point in this exchange do you stop lying?

Read what I wrote about the Hirsch report. Refute ANY of it. I dare you.

Again, please link the 2:5 reference you're alluding to.

I refuse. It is not my job to remember where you sprinkled ridiculously ignorant claims in these threads, only that you did, and what they were. After you did it, you tucked tail and ran. Smartest thing you've done since I showed up here. And was completely predictable.

You increasingly look like a coward who ducks specific challenges, and instead proclaims "you can't answer me!!!" over and over again.

Liar.

You requested a specific rebuttal of the Hirsch report. I gave it to you. So far, you haven't responded to the specific quotes and information I used from within that report to show why it is wrong. Refute what I wrote. Refute what Hirsch wrote. I dare you.

Because what we're covering here is net energy, and you are well aware that heavy oils do not yield abundant net energy.

The topic for this thread isn't heavy oil either. And I will bet you don't know any more about net energy or heavy oil than you do Hirsch's report.

 

[westwall]

Oil is not measured by, defined by, given the go ahead to drill for or value calculated on by using EROEI. Ever. In the history of the oil business.

Obviously the oil industry DOES consider the rate of return before drilling, otherwise it would have exploited said shale/sands reserves YEARS ago, rather than depend on far cheaper LIGHT CRUDE for decades. What do you still fail to understand about this very easy-to-understand discussion?

A) IRR is not EROEI. I recommend google for learning the difference.
B) Shale (gas) began production in 1825. Which even in a peakers world qualifies as "years ago".
C) Light sweet crude is also produced from these shales, dating back into the 19th century.

Learn some history already. Put down your Bible, and pick up a BOOK already.



Read what I wrote about the Hirsch report. Refute ANY of it. I dare you.



I refuse. It is not my job to remember where you sprinkled ridiculously ignorant claims in these threads, only that you did, and what they were. After you did it, you tucked tail and ran. Smartest thing you've done since I showed up here. And was completely predictable.

You increasingly look like a coward who ducks specific challenges, and instead proclaims "you can't answer me!!!" over and over again.

Liar.

You requested a specific rebuttal of the Hirsch report. I gave it to you. So far, you haven't responded to the specific quotes and information I used from within that report to show why it is wrong. Refute what I wrote. Refute what Hirsch wrote. I dare you.

Because what we're covering here is net energy, and you are well aware that heavy oils do not yield abundant net energy.

The topic for this thread isn't heavy oil either. And I will bet you don't know any more about net energy or heavy oil than you do Hirsch's report.

I reposted jiggys idiotic comment above. That way everyone could see what a fool he is.

 

[RGR]

2.5:1 (from heavy oils) will NOT maintain an economic paradigm utterly dependent upon 7% annual growth. What don't you understand about that assertion?

I'm becoming amazed that you can spell the word "oil".

Assert all you'd like. Assert Santa Claus is invisible..it would be as relevant to the topic at hand as most anything else you've "asserted".

 

[westwall]

2.5:1 (from heavy oils) will NOT maintain an economic paradigm utterly dependent upon 7% annual growth. What don't you understand about that assertion?

I'm becoming amazed that you can spell the word "oil".

Assert all you'd like. Assert Santa Claus is invisible..it would be as relevant to the topic at hand as most anything else you've "asserted".

 

[JiggsCasey]

A) IRR is not EROEI. I recommend google for learning the difference.

Where did I indicate is was the same? You're trying to steer the discussion in a different direction, and ignore my point. Who gives a fuck? I didn't say a word about IRR.

EROEI is quite relevant when we're comparing different sources of energy. Don't lie to the forum again.

B) Shale (gas) began production in 1825. Which even in a peakers world qualifies as "years ago".

Great. And what kind of progress have they made? Barely much of any. You've just underscored my point. If it was a desirable and efficient source of energy, it would have become a vastly expanded industry a very long time ago. Not just in Texas.

I love when you point to a mole hill, and pretend it's a mountain. It's what you do. Adorable.

C) Light sweet crude is also produced from these shales, dating back into the 19th century.

But requiring ENORMOUS inputs to extract and refine to that grade, which is really the entire point you prefer to willfully ignore in this entire debate.

Learn some history already. Put down your Bible, and pick up a BOOK already.

LOL. Such a dick. You think you've enlightened me somehow, yet you're too retarded to acknowledge basic input vs. output ratio. But it IS amusingly ironic that you'd mention the Bible and books, considering your entire platform is based on HOPE, not data.

"It's where it's ALWAYS been!"

Read what I wrote about the Hirsch report. Refute ANY of it. I dare you.

Are you talking about this post, pumpkin?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3201600-post117.html

The one where you pretended Hirsch was wrong, overall, based on the shale gas "boom?"

The one where you made two retarded assertions without any link to back them up?

1) that "Natural gas supplies from shale gas exploded" (as if supply estimates somehow means actual production capability)

and

2) that Hirsch "ignores the geology"... (rich irony there)

You were challenged to show how much annual shale gas production actually occurs in this country, and you ignored it. That's because speculation based on claims of "technically recoverable" gas shale deposits is not actual production of those resources. If it were cost effective to contaminate our water supply and get that shale gas, we would have "exploded" the industry (to use your unfortunate term).

Like I said, anyone can CLAIM there a trillions of cubic meters of gas from rock. Getting to it in any abundance at affordable cost is all that matters.

You didn't show that Hirsch was ultimately wrong. You asserted he was wrong for YOUR apples to oranges criteria. Gas from shale is not the same as easily accessible pools of LNG. That includes the new, disgusting fracktacular procedure I bet you're all aflutter over, huh great advocate of fossil fuel gluttony?

The market will realize that most shale wells will be a total train-wreck in ANY flat-price environment. To drill for shale gas is to bet on a price spike. Once the price has spiked however, it cannot just go flat for the Johnie-come-latelys to profit. Why? Due to "Receding Horizons". The cost to drill rises 10 to often 20 times faster than the increase in NG prices during a spike. You can walk to the horizon, but you will NEVER get there with a low EROEI play like shale gas.

Shale-Gas Drilling in U.S. May Stall as Below-Production Prices Erode Cash

Shale-gas drilling slowdown predicted - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
By Edward Klump - Apr 23, 2010

Drilling in U.S. shale-gas formations may tumble as companies run short of cash after prices for the fuel languished below the cost of production for more than a year.

Natural-gas explorers will realize the need to cut drilling in the next few months, said Murry Gerber, chairman of EQT Corp., the largest producer in the Appalachian Basin. “I think the rig count is going to come down, and then you’ll see the production follow,” he said in a telephone interview.

“Investors have expressed, some of them at least, their concern about what appears to be an irrational resolve to continue drilling,” said Arthur Berman, director of Labyrinth Consulting Services near Houston. “I expect that that sentiment will perhaps become stronger.”

James Halloran, a consultant at Financial America Securities in Cleveland, said that under some contracts with landowners, producers risk losing leases if they don’t drill. Gas prices will remain low “until somebody wakes up in this whole thing and says, ‘I haven’t got any money, I can’t do this anymore,’” he said.

After continuing to drill at money-losing prices to show investors gains in reserves and output, many producers won’t have enough cash to fund new wells at their recent pace, said Berman of Labyrinth Consulting.

“The current gas-pricing fundamentals don’t seem to support the degree of dry gas activity which is under way at the moment,” Tim Probert, president of global business lines at Houston-based Halliburton, told investors on an April 19 conference call. “We certainly see that weakening.”

Petrohawk Energy Corp. said April 13 that it will cut its number of rigs in the Haynesville Shale of Louisiana and Texas by 20 percent and increase drilling for more lucrative gas liquids in South Texas. Houston-based Petrohawk also agreed to sell a stake in its Haynesville pipelines for $875 million and cut its capital budget by $100 million.

Joan Dunlap, vice president of investor relations at Petrohawk, declined to say at what gas price the company’s wells can break even.

Shale joint ventures signed with major oil companies by such producers as Chesapeake Energy Corp. and Atlas Energy Inc., as well as the sale of XTO to Exxon Mobil Corp., may help slow drilling, said Haag Sherman, chief investment officer at Salient Partners in Houston.

I refuse. It is not my job to remember where you sprinkled ridiculously ignorant claims in these threads, only that you did, and what they were. After you did it, you tucked tail and ran. Smartest thing you've done since I showed up here. And was completely predictable.

LOL. You keep telling yourself that, smarm king. What you did was distort my point, and turn an exchange about EROEI and the global economy into a dumb hypothetical about a CEO's personal profit margin.

But let's get something clear right up front: I don't tuck tail and run from "nothing to see here" zealots. Especially those who enter the forum conceding oil is a finite resource. I may be away for a few days, but nothing you have yet presented has me concerned in the least, and I never avoid bloviating, arrogant instigators like you. I enjoy them.

Keep at it. And perhaps you can continue your pretentious, ineffectual narrative of what "peakers think", their psychological motives (LOL), and how increased reliance on dirty oils can maintain a seamless transition for complex societies. It's done wonders for you so far (LOL squared).

Liar.

Irony.

You requested a specific rebuttal of the Hirsch report. I gave it to you. So far, you haven't responded to the specific quotes and information I used from within that report to show why it is wrong. Refute what I wrote. Refute what Hirsch wrote. I dare you.

Actually, yes I did. Covered at the time, and above.

You pretended gas shale discoveries trump Hirsch's liquid fuels outlook overall. Yet, when asked to summarize total annual shale gas production, so as to put shale gas into perspective, you "tucked tail and ran," which is the best decision you've made since you joined the forum.


See you next week, for your latest round of spin on heavy oil/gas reserves. Perhaps a new claim of low grade uranium deposits as well! Or maybe you'll just punt to "peaker psychology" pseudo-intellectual trolling. That's what your personal cheerleader below really gets excited about.

 

[JiggsCasey]

LOL... You've been melted down to nothing more than a sideline cheerleader now. Classic.

Ah well. George Bush was a cheerleader, and he became the leader of the free world!

 

[RGR]

A) IRR is not EROEI. I recommend google for learning the difference.

Who gives a fuck? I didn't say a word about IRR.

Actually...you did. Westwall pointed out where. You contrived an example whereby someone will trade you 2 of something in exchange for 5. This defines IRR of the particular scenario. Google it up and learn something already.

EROEI is quite relevant when we're comparing different sources of energy. Don't lie to the forum again.

Refute my past statements on the use of EROEI in the industry you are pretending to understand. I was definitive in how useless it is. A single example is all it takes to refute my global statement.

But requiring ENORMOUS inputs to extract and refine to that grade, which is really the entire point you prefer to willfully ignore in this entire debate.

You do not understand what an enormous input is. Initially, it consisted of a handdug well 27 feet deep. In the peaker world is a 27' hole in the ground enormous? Or does it just look that way to ignorant people who have never actually drilled a well before in their life?

Are you talking about this post, pumpkin?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3201600-post117.html

The one where you pretended Hirsch was wrong, overall, based on the shale gas "boom?"

You apparently can't even read what I wrote, and why it matters. Do you know what a precedent is? A precept? How scientific thought works? Do you understand the difference between statistics and geology? Do you actually KNOW anything?

You were challenged to show how much annual shale gas production actually occurs in this country, and you ignored it.

The original challenge was yours. I used your favorite report very specifically. Refute it please.

You can walk to the horizon, but you will NEVER get there with a low EROEI play like shale gas.

What a wonderfully stupid analogy. Its nearly incoherent. Does your bible not cover this scenario, whereby the peaker has backed themselves into a corner on a topic they don't understand, is it recommended in peaker land that they now "insert ridiculous statement" prior to tucking tail and running? Again.

I was very specific about the parts of the Hirsch report I used. Read it and refute what I said. Not with yet another ridiculous assertion on your part, you have an entire report to use as your ammunition. Try thinking about the topic for a change. I dare you.

You requested a specific rebuttal of the Hirsch report. I gave it to you. So far, you haven't responded to the specific quotes and information I used from within that report to show why it is wrong. Refute what I wrote. Refute what Hirsch wrote. I dare you.

Actually, yes I did. Covered at the time, and above.

Not at all. You didn't reference a single word Hirsch said. You made more assertions, which in your world must appear substantial, but in the real world are the equivalent of invisible Santa Claus. Reference a paragraph. A snippet. A claim by someone who knows something about the industry, which obviously isn't YOU. Do it properly, and maybe I'll consider for a nanosecond that you aren't some ignorant peaker sock puppet, unreeling the bible out for all to see in the hopes of scaring more noobs to your religion.

You challenged me to dissemble your favorite report. I did so. Then you vanished. Go back to that thread and try and concentrate...try and focus...and then try and refute what Hirsch said, and I referenced. Try and ignore the urge to resort to bible thumping tactics, and just explain, in a paragraph or three, why Hirsch really didn't mean what he said. And why me noticing was incorrect. Feel free to use another reference if you'd like. Make sure to include the proper footnote so I can round it up in its entirety.

 

[westwall]

LOL... You've been melted down to nothing more than a sideline cheerleader now. Classic.

Ah well. George Bush was a cheerleader, and he became the leader of the free world!

No, not melted down at all. I just feel it unsporting to pile on to a mental cripple. I'm a geologist but never worked in the oil industry per se. I had many friends who obviously did so went out to see the well heads and learned a smattering, but I was involved in gems and metals for my primary endeavors. It's fun learning from someone like RGR who clearly knows what he's talking about....unlike yourself.

Were you a smart parrot you would actually study what he has given you and try and better yourself.

 

[JiggsCasey]

Not at all. You didn't reference a single word Hirsch said. You made more assertions, which in your world must appear substantial, but in the real world are the equivalent of invisible Santa Claus. Reference a paragraph. A snippet. A claim by someone who knows something about the industry, which obviously isn't YOU. Do it properly, and maybe I'll consider for a nanosecond that you aren't some ignorant peaker sock puppet, unreeling the bible out for all to see in the hopes of scaring more noobs to your religion.

I'll refer you to the "gusher in california" thread for my response to your repetitive pablum. As for this specific arrogance above, hopefully these men pass your curious qualification for what constitutes "knowing something about the industry:"

You challenged me to dissemble your favorite report. I did so. Then you vanished. Go back to that thread and try and concentrate...try and focus...and then try and refute what Hirsch said, and I referenced.

ROFLMAO. You didn't "dissemble" jack shit. You punted to the shale gas "explosion," which you refused to quantify. Could you be more pretentious?

It is amusing, however, watching you pretend my reluctance to visit this forum every day like you do is somehow "vanishing." There is nothing, again NOTHING, you have in your arsenal that I would ever have to duck. Your desperate methods of steering the discussion to your own bits of irrelevance are not refuting the overall condition of peak. Sorry, they just aren't. ... Where is the oil going forward? At current rate of demand growth, how can the world ramp up to 100-110 million bpd? From what?

Do better.

 

[RGR]

I'll refer you to the "gusher in california" thread for my response to your repetitive pablum.

Big words! Except...you haven't responded. As best I can tell, you haven't even shown you understand the basis for how I discredited the Hirsch report. You haven't quoted any other report or reference to dispute what I said, or even quoted or referenced anyone else who explained why Hirsch really didn't mean what he wrote.

Why not?

As for this specific arrogance above, hopefully these men pass your curious qualification for what constitutes "knowing something about the industry:"

Take any statement they made that is your favorite, and link to their basis for making it. Show us, and the entire world that you aren't just a parrot spewing ASPO propaganda! Be free! Activate a couple extra neurons! Whaddaya say!

It is amusing, however, watching you pretend my reluctance to visit this forum every day like you do is somehow "vanishing."

Tuck tail and run is an even better description. Although if it takes you an entire week to come back with nothing but another demonstration of how you don't understand how I discredited the Hirsch report, well, you sure you wouldn't rather stick to the church congregation where no one will call you on the ridiculous nature of religious beliefs?

 

[westwall]

Not at all. You didn't reference a single word Hirsch said. You made more assertions, which in your world must appear substantial, but in the real world are the equivalent of invisible Santa Claus. Reference a paragraph. A snippet. A claim by someone who knows something about the industry, which obviously isn't YOU. Do it properly, and maybe I'll consider for a nanosecond that you aren't some ignorant peaker sock puppet, unreeling the bible out for all to see in the hopes of scaring more noobs to your religion.

I'll refer you to the "gusher in california" thread for my response to your repetitive pablum. As for this specific arrogance above, hopefully these men pass your curious qualification for what constitutes "knowing something about the industry:"

You challenged me to dissemble your favorite report. I did so. Then you vanished. Go back to that thread and try and concentrate...try and focus...and then try and refute what Hirsch said, and I referenced.

ROFLMAO. You didn't "dissemble" jack shit. You punted to the shale gas "explosion," which you refused to quantify. Could you be more pretentious?

It is amusing, however, watching you pretend my reluctance to visit this forum every day like you do is somehow "vanishing." There is nothing, again NOTHING, you have in your arsenal that I would ever have to duck. Your desperate methods of steering the discussion to your own bits of irrelevance are not refuting the overall condition of peak. Sorry, they just aren't. ... Where is the oil going forward? At current rate of demand growth, how can the world ramp up to 100-110 million bpd? From what?

Do better.

This has just as much credibility as the dreck you posted from ASPO. After all they are a society right?

 

[RGR]

This has just as much credibility as the dreck you posted from ASPO. After all they are a society right?

Nope. Not even a Society.

The Association for the Study of Peak Oil. Started by a guy who declared peak oil...in 1989. After a decade of no peak oil...he decided to start an association to study it, him not doing so well by himself. They hold meetings (known as an echo chamber, won't invite actual experts on the topic) once a year, all 50 of them or so, slap themselves on the back for being clever, push this years peak oil prediction out another year or two, and start planning next years echo chamber.

I am not allowed to attend unfortunately, I think it would be a blast. Last time they held the meeting in Denver in 09, people dressed up in chicken costumes and held signs saying "The sky is falling!" outside the hotel room they were meeting in. Hysterical.

 

[mdn2000]

2.5:1 (from heavy oils) will NOT maintain an economic paradigm utterly dependent upon 7% annual growth. What don't you understand about that assertion?

I'm becoming amazed that you can spell the word "oil".

Assert all you'd like. Assert Santa Claus is invisible..it would be as relevant to the topic at hand as most anything else you've "asserted".

Its called Cut and Paste.